BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. PONGIAPPAN, J.
Shanmugasundaram - Appellant
Versus
State Rep by The Inspector of Police, Trichy - Respondent
Crl. RC (MD) No. 526 of 2017 & Crl. M.P (MD) Nos. 5883 & 5884 of 2017
Decided On : 13-08-2021
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313, 397 r/w 401 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 279, 304(A) - Criminal Revision - Doctrine of res ipsa loquitur - Causing death by negligence - Rash driving or riding on a public way - Filed to check correctness of judgment - Whether at time of accident, revision petitioner herein drove his vehicle in a negligent manner – Held, court have to examine with negligence in case of accident can be gathered from attendant circumstances - No doubt, doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is equally applicable to cases of accident and not merely to civil jurisprudence - Thus, these principles can equally be extended to criminal cases, provided attendant circumstances and basic facts are proved - It may also be noticed that either accident must be proved by proper and cogent evidence or it should be an admitted fact before this principle, can be applied - Now, doctrine comes to aid at a subsequent stage, where it is not clear as to how and due to whose negligence accident occurred - It is settled law that driving vehicle with high speed alone is not an offence under Section 304(A) of IPC - For proving offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, it is necessary for prosecution to show that when at time of occurrence accused drove vehicle in a rash or negligent manner - But in this case, evidence given by PW1 did not constitute ingredients which are required to prove offence under Section 304(A) of IPC - Criminal Revision Case is allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: The Criminal Revision case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment dated 10.02.2017 in C.A.No.48 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli confirming the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.141 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Trichy, dated 30.09.2016 and set aside the same.
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to check the correctness of the judgment dated 10.02.2017 made in C.A.No.48 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli, confirming the conviction and sentence in C.C.No.141 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.I, Trichy, dated 30.09.2016.
2. The accused in C.C.No.141 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate's Court No.1, Trichy, is the revision petitioner. Before the trial Court, the respondent filed the final report against the revision petitioner alleging that the revision petitioner herein committed an offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C (2counts).
3. After full fledged trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Trichy, found the accused guilty for offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year for each count. Challenging the same, the present revision petitioner prepared an appeal in C.A.No.48 of on the file of Principal Sessions Court, Trichy. After hearing the elaborate submission made by the learned counsel appearing on either side, by judgment dated 10.02.2017, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Trichy, dismissed the appeal by confirming the sentence awarded by the trial Court. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner is before this Court with the present criminal revision case.
4. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-
(ii) On receipt of the case records, PW11-Baskaran the then Inspector on the same date, visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses, he prepared an Observation Mahazar under Ex.P2. He drew the Rough Sketch and the same has been marked as Ex.P9. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. Further, he arrested the accused and after making enquiry, he recovered the lorry and sent the same for inspection.
(iii) PW10- Umamaheswari the then Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I on 31.12.2014 received the requisition given by PW11 and in view of the same, she examined the offending vehicle and after making inspection, she issued the certificate under Ex.P3 stating that the accident was not happened due to the mechanical defect of the vehicle.
(iv) In continuation of investigation, after receipt of the certificate issued by PW10, PW-11 handed over the case records to PW12-Anbuselvan, the then Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, for further investigation. PW12 held inquest and prepared the inquest report
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.