JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Sessions Court at Tiruvannamalai dated 11.02.2014 made in C.A.No.1/2010 confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by Judicial Magistrate, Arani dated 22.12.2009 made in C.C.No.334 of 2007 and acquit the petitioner.)

1. The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.

2. The respondent-police, after investigation in Crime No.120 of 2007, filed the final report against the accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 I.P.C. After observing the formalities, the case was numbered as C.C.No.334/2007. After observing the legal formalities, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10, and marked Exs.P1 to P8 and no material object was marked. The trial Court, based upon the evidence let in, came to the conclusion and found the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A I.P.C. Accordingly, the trial Court convicted the accused to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 15 days under Section 279 I.P.C and also convicted him and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months under Section 304-A I.P.C.

3. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10, and marked Exs.P1 to 8 and no material object was marked and no one was examined on the defence side and no exhibits were marked.

4. Based upon the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the charges under Section 279 and 380 I.P.C, against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted the accused as detailed by its judgment dated 22.12.2009.

5. On appeal, in Crl.A.No.1/2010 the learned Session Judge confirmed the conviction and sentence and hence this revision is filed by the accused.

6. Heard the learned Legal-Aid-Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent.

7. The case of the prosecution is that On 10.07.2007, the deceased Senthil Kumar went to the Rice Mill on the previous night, he asked him to go and get the deceased from the Rice Mill, the witness Dharmalingam, went to the Rice Mill and both are them proceeded towards the Chetpet-Arani Road on the North side of the road in two vehicles. The deceased drove his vehicle first then the witness Dharmalingam followed him while so, they where near the Subashkhan street. On the opposite side a lorry was driven by its driver by over speed and claimed the speed breaker at the time due to over speed the door of the cabin opened and hit the forehead of the deceased Senthil Kumar so, the senthilkumar fell down on the left side and sustained injuries on his skull lower jaw, forehead, and all over face. The accused alone drove the vehicle at the time of the accident then after the accident the accused get down the lorry and ran away from the spot. Hence, the accused is liable to be punish for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A I.P.C. Hence, the charge.

8. The accused is charged for the offences under Sections 279 and 304 I.P.C. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and Exhibits P1 to P8 were marked and on one was examined on the defence side and no exhibits were marked.

9. P.W.1 Dharmalingam is the brother of the deceased Senthilkumar. So, it was told by their father that the deceased Senthilkumar went to their Rice Mill on the previous night of 10.07.2007. So, he asked him to go and get the deceased from the Rice Mill. Hence, P.W.1 went to the Rice Mill and both of them proceeded towards the Chetpet-Arani Road on the North side of the road in two vehicles. The deceased drove his vehicle first. Then P.W.1 followed him. While so, when they were nearing Subashkhan Street, on the opposite side, a lorry,