JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : This Criminal Revision Case has been filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and to set aside the order passed in Crl.A.No.9 of 2017, on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 09.03.2017, which upheld the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate-I, Mettur, in C.C.No.76 of 2012.)

1. The convicted accused is the revision petitioner herein.

2(a).The respondent police has filed a charge sheet for the alleged offence under Section 304(a) of IPC and 279 of IPC against the accused in Crime No. 43 of 2014 and the same was taken up on file as C.C.No.76 of 2014 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur. After the trial the learned Magistrate has convicted the accused in C.C.No.76 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(a) of IPC and sentenced him as under:

(i) For the offence under Section 279 of IPC, the learned Judge has sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment

(ii) For the offence under Section 304(a) IPC, the learned Judge has sentenced the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2(b). Aggrieved against the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner/accused has preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.9 of 2017, before the learned III Additional Session Judge, Salem and by an order dated 09.03.2017, the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court. Hence, the Criminal Revision Case.

3. Heard Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Senior Advocate, appearing for Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Public Prosecutor for the respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

4. The learned Senior Advocate would contend that there is a lot of alteration regarding the date of the occurrence in all vital documents. The prosecution has not proved the actual date of accident and the adoption of Doctrine Res IPSA Laquitior is not applicable to criminal proceedings but both the Courts below have erred in applying the same. None of the prosecution witnesses are occurrence witness and hence prayed for acquittal of the accused from the charges framed.

5. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the prosecution has proved the charge under Sections 304(a) and 279 of IPC.

(ii) Whether the order of conviction passed by both the Courts below is sustainable in law.

6(i). On a perusal of the records it is seen that PW1/defacto complainant and his wife viz., Chinnapillai (deceased) are the residents of Kullanur village and the said village is situated about 3 km East of Nagavalli on Nagavalli-Tharamangalam road and the house of the defacto complainant is situated on the South abutting the road. The defacto complainant and his wife Chinnapillai (deceased) were having a petty shop in front of their house and they used to keep the vegetables for sale on a cot in front of the petty shop.

6(ii). While so, on 04.04.2014 at about 2.30 p.m., the deceased was arranging tomatoes on the cot and at that time, the revision petitioner/accused drove a Maruthi Swift car bearing Registration No.TN52-Y-7106 in a rash and negligent manner. The said vehicle came extreme right side of the road and colluded with the signal post and thereafter hit the cot which was placed in front of the deceased house, whereby the said vehicle hit the deceased and dragged her till the bathroom wall of their house. Due to the said mishap, the deceased sustained severe injuries and died on the way. The deceased was declared brought dead by Government Hospital, Omalur.

6(iii). Thereafter, the defacto complainant has preferred a written complaint before the respondent police and the same was taken on file in Crime No.43 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 279 & 304(A) of IPC. The respondent police filed a