SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2870

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D. JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
Chandran S/o Palani – Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Annamalai Police Station – Respondent
Crl. R.C. No. 292 of 2014
Decided On : 08-02-2021

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. R. Vinayagavishnu.
For the Respondent: Mr. T. Shanmugarajeswaran.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 279 and 304A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207, 313, 397 and 401(1) – Accident – Death – Appeal against conviction - Petitioner/accused herein had driven bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the backside of bike driven by victim and caused his death - Held, Though due to incident, person has died accused cannot be convicted on mere surmises and conjecture and can be convicted only on legal evidence. The law does not permit court to punish accused on basis of moral conviction or suspicion alone. Burden of proof in criminal trial never shifts and burden is always on prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts on basis of acceptable evidence. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that more serious offence, stricter decree of proof required. In this case, prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt and Courts below without properly appreciating and analysing evidence have erred in convicting the petitioner/accused - Criminal revision allowed.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgment dated 20.0.2014 passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 73 of 2013 confirming the judgment dated 16.05.2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Pollachi in C.C. No. 663 of 2005.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 29.11.2005 at about 10.45 hrs. near Meenkarai to Pollachi Road, the petitioner/accused herein had driven the bus bearing Registration No. KL-9N-7181 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the backside of the bike bearing Registration No. TN-41L-4287 driven by the victim Kalimuthu and caused his death. On the complaint given by PW-1, the respondent registered a case in Cr. No. 499 of 2005 and after completion of investigation filed the final report against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Section 279 and 304A IPC. On summons the petitioner/accused appeared before the trial Court and copies of the documents were furnished to him at free of cost under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the substances of the charges were explained to the petitioner/accused and he was questioned in Tamil and charges were framed under Section 279 and 304A IPC and he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

3. On the side of the prosecution 13 witnesses viz. PW-1 to PW-13 were examined and Exs.P1 to P8 and MO.1-Photographs were marked.

4. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the evidences of the prosecution is as follow:

    PW-1 and the deceased victim/Kalimuthu are relatives. They had gone to Kerala for the purpose of attending to a financial business and while they were returning in two separate two-wheelers on 29.11.2005 at 10.45 hrs. near Meenkarai, the petitioner/accused who was driving a private bus bearing Registration No. KL-9N-7181 at high speed dashed against the victim's two wheeler, due to which, the victim was thrown away from the vehicle and fell down and sustained injuries. The bus came to halt after moving few distance. On seeing the accident, PW-1 and PW-3 who were coming behind the bus in the other two wheelers stopped and lifted the victim. The victim sustained injuries on the right head, forearm and upper knee. PW-1 had taken the victim in Ambulance to the Coimbatore Government Hospital, while crossing Pollachi, the victim became unconscious and thereafter, the victim was taken to the Pollachi Government Hospital, where he was declared brought dead at 2.45 p.m. The body was kept in the mortuary. PW-1 had gone to the Annamalai police station gave information and the complaint was prepared by some one in the police station and PW-1 had affixed his signature in the complaint. The complaint given by PW-1 is marked as Ex.P1.

5. PW-2 is yet another motorcyclist who followed PW-1 and witnessed the occurrence.

6. PW-3 is the nephew of victim and he had deposed that he heard about the accident.

7. PW-4 is the wife of the victim and she had deposed about hearing the accident and the death of the victim/her husband.

8. PW-5 is the passenger who travelled in the bus driven by the petitioner/accused, he had deposed that the petitioner/accused had driven the bus in a high speed and hit the backside of the two wheeler and that he had witnessed the accident.

9. PW-6 is yet another passenger who was traveling in the bus driven by the petitioner/accused. He had spoken that the bus which was driven by the petitioner/accused had dashed against the two wheeler and the victim having sustained injury and were taken in an Ambulance to Pollachi Government Hospital where the victim was declared brought dead.

10. PW-7 is the photographer who had taken photographs at the place of occurrence. The photographs and the negatives taken by him were marked as M.O.1 series.

11. PW-8 is the witness who had signed in the observation mahazar prepared by the police, which was marked as Ex.P2.

12. PW-9 is one of the witnesses who had attested in the rough sketch Ex.P6.

13. PW-10 is the Motor vehicle inspector who had inspected the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top