IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Sakthivel - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Salem - Respondent
Crl.R.C. No. 685 of 2017
Decided On : 24-06-2022
Criminal Revision petition - Offence under Section 304-A IPC - [KEYWORD] - [ACCIDENT] - [Section 279 IPC, Section 337 IPC, Section 304-A IPC] - The court discussed the application of the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' and the burden of proof on the prosecution in establishing negligence or rashness. It highlighted the need for firmly established circumstances to infer guilt and the limited use of 'res ipsa loquitur' as a permissive inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was convicted for causing a fatal accident and injuries due to rash and negligent driving. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses and evidence of the accident. The petitioner contested the charges, citing lack of evidence and improper investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the petitioner's rash or negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt. It emphasized the lack of firmly established circumstances and the insufficiency of the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur' as the sole basis for conviction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove rash and negligent driving, the application of the principle of 'res ipsa loquitur', and the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for firmly established circumstances to infer guilt and the limited use of 'res ipsa loquitur' as a permissive inference under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act. It highlighted the burden of proof on the prosecution in criminal cases and the requirement of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused, setting aside the lower court's judgment and emphasizing the lack of firmly established circumstances to support the charges. The bail bond, if any, was ordered to be cancelled.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Revision petition filed under Sections 394 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records and set aside the Judgement passed in C.A.No.112 of 2016 dated 18.04.2017, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and Judgement in C.C.No. 208 of 2010 dated 17.10.2016 on the file of Judicial Magistrate – I, Mettur.)
1. This Revision petition has been filed to call for the records and set aside the Judgement made in Crl.A.No.112 of 2016 dated 18.04.2017, passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem and confirming the Judgement made in C.C.No. 208 of 2010 dated 17.10.2016 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate –I, Mettur.
2. The petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 279 IPC, and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to suffer one month Simple Imprisonment, for the offence under Section 337 (4 Counts) IPC sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for each count and in default to suffer one month Simple Imprisonment and for Section 304-A IPC and sentenced to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default to suffer three months Simple Imprisonment, by the Judgement dated 17.10.2016 passed in C.C.No.208 of 2010. Against the Judgement of the trial Court, the petitioner filed an appeal in C.A.No.112 of 2016 before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge by the Judgement dated 18.04.2017 dismissed the Appeal and confirmed the trial Court's Judgement and conviction.
3. The Prosecution in order to establish its case examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. The petitioner examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 of his side.
4. The brief facts of the case is that on 30.04.2010 at about 5.30 p.m in Mettur to Bavani Main Road, Kaveri Cross Muniyappan Kovil Street, the petitioner drove the passenger bus of Venkateswara Transport bearing Reg.No.TN-52-5577 in a rash and negligent manner and collided against the stationary lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-23-T-977 from behind, due to which a passenger of the bus, a boy aged twelve one Krishnan, died on the spot and five other passengers namely, Venkatachalam, Azhagesan, Vadivel, Mani and Arukani sustained simple injuries.
5. The defacto complainant is the father of the deceased Krishnan who lodged a complaint and a case in Crime No.163 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304 – A IPC came to be registered. On conclusion of investigation, the final report was filed. The Prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.16 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11. The petitioner examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 on his side. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased Krishnan. In his complaint, he has stated that on 30.04.2010 at about 5.30 p.m., he along with his wife viz., Selvarani (PW10), his daughter, his son, his sister and his brotherin- law and his wife Kavitha and their two daughters all travelled in the bus after visiting Temple at Madheswaran hills, the bus in which they travelled crossed river cauvery, collided against the stationary lorry from behind and caused the accident, due to which, he lost his son and many passengers in the bus sustained injuries. The complaint was marked as Ex.P.1. PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW6 were the passengers in the bus who had sustained injuries. PW5 and PW7 are the brothers-in-law of PW1. PW5 was informed about the accident by PW7. PW8 and PW9 are the witnesses to the inquest. PW10 is the wife of PW1 and mother of deceased who also travelled in the bus. PW11 is the tailor who is said to have witnessed the accident and is a witness for the observation mahazar Ex.P2. PW12 is the Casualty Doctor attached to the Government Hospital who treated PW2 Venkatachalam and issued Ex.P3 wound certificate, treated PW6 issued Ex.P4 wound certificate, treated PW5 issued Ex.P6 wound certificate, treated PW4 issued Ex.P7 wound certificate. PW13 is the Doctor who conducted the Post-mortem and issued a post-mortem certificate as Ex.P.8. PW14 is the Grade I Motor Vehicle Inspector who
The absence of key eyewitness testimony undermines the prosecution's case on charges of rash and negligent driving, necessitating acquittal.
Criminal negligence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, and mere occurrence of an accident does not presume rashness or negligence.
: Answers given by accused when incriminating circumstances appearing in prosecution evidence are put to him and his statement under Section 342 of J&K Cr.P.C. is recorded, are required to be conside....
Negligence and rashness must be proven beyond reasonable doubt for conviction under Sections 279 and 304A IPC; mere involvement in an accident does not equate to guilt.
Res ipsa loquitur applies to unexplained vehicle deviation from road, shifting negligence burden to driver; revisional jurisdiction limited, no reappreciation absent perversity.
Driving recklessly and losing control of a vehicle causing injury or death constitutes negligence, warranting conviction under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A IPC.
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.