IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Anthony - Appellant
Versus
The State Rep by Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 1234 of 2016
Decided On : 27-05-2022
Criminal Revision - Rash and Negligent Driving - Section 337, 338, 340(A) of IPC - [337, 338, 340(A)] - The court discussed the evidence of the witnesses, the damage to the vehicles involved, and the circumstances of the accident to determine the rash and negligent driving. The court highlighted the lack of conclusive evidence to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for rash and negligent driving resulting in an accident. The lower appellate Court confirmed the conviction, leading to the Criminal Revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal.
Issues: The key issue was whether the petitioner's driving was rash and negligent, leading to the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The evidence and materials did not conclusively establish the petitioner as the reason and cause for the accident, leading to the acquittal.
Final Decision: The judgments of the Courts below were set aside, and the petitioner was acquitted from all the charges.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for records of the case in CA.No.4 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge at Tiurvannamalai, dated 24.06.2016 confirming the judgment passed in CC.No.16 of 2007 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Tiruvannamalai 26.05.2010 and set aside the conviction of this petitioner and direct that the petitioner may be set at liberty and acquitting him of the charges.) 1. The conviction and sentence passed against the petitioner in C.C.No.16 of 2017, dated 26.05.2010 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai/trial Court are as follows:-
* For offence under Section 337 of IPC, the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.300/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
* For offence under Section 338 of IPC, the petitioner to pay a fine of Rs.700/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
* For offence under Section 340(A) of IPC, the petitioner to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month.
2. As against the judgment of trial Court, dated 26.05.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai/lower appellate Court in C.A.No.4 of 2010. The lower appellate Court, by judgment, dated 24.06.2016 confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal, against which, the present Criminal Revision case.
3. The gist of the case is that on 11.12.2006, at about 10.20 p.m., the defacto complainant/PW1 was riding the bike viz., Hero Honda bearing registration No.TN 25 C 2975 in triples along with his brother/PW5 and one Kumar/deceased and proceeding from Tiruvannamalai to Chengam. At that time, near Emalingam Green New Hotel, the petitioner/accused came in opposite direction in his two wheeler viz., Enfield Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN 69 B 7830 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against PW1's bike. Due to which, all the three threw away and sustained injuries and they were taken to the Government Hospital, Tiruvannamalai, where PW6, the Casualty Medical Doctor gave treatment to them, issued Accident Registers (Exs.P3 to P5) for PW1, PW5 and deceased Kumar. At that time, the deceased Kumar was unconscious. Thereafter, PW1 was sent to the Jipmer Hospital, Puducherry for further treatment, from there information was sent to the respondent Police. PW10, Head Constable had gone to the Jipmer Hospital, Puducherry, received the complaint (Ex.P1) from PW1, registered FIR (Ex.P8), visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P9) and examined the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence. On the next day of occurrence, the said Kumar passed away. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to PW11, Inspector of Police, who filed the Alteration Report (Ex.P10), examined the witnesses further, made arrangement for inquest on the body of the deceased/Kumar, sent the body for Postmortem and produced the vehicles involved in the accident to PW9, the Motor Vehicle Inspector. On collection of Postmortem Report (Ex.P6) and Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P8), PW11 filed the charge sheet before the trial Court.
4. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW11 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. The trial Court, on conclusion of trial, passed a judgment of conviction as stated above and the same was confirmed by the lower appellate Court, vide judgment dated 24.06.2016 in C.A.No.4 of 2010.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence is said to have taken place in main road, but no independent person examined as witness by the prosecution. In this case, PW1 and PW5 along with the deceased/Kumar were proceeding in Hero Honda bike in tr
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to secure a conviction for rash and negligent driving.
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner acted with rashness or negligence, leading to the acquittal.
Accident had happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the accused driver of the offending vehicle, in which, the deceased died on the spot and PW.1 sustained injuries and that the Prosecutio....
Accusation of negligence requires proof of rash and negligent driving; high speed alone does not establish guilt in criminal law.
Conviction for causing death due to negligence was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and failure to properly admit key evidentiary documents.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to establish the identity of the driver and the manner of driving weakens the prosecution's case.
A conviction under criminal law requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which was lacking in this case, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove rash or negligent driving endangering human life and the causation of death in order to establish the offences under Se....
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.