The judgment emphasizes the need for evidence to prove rash and negligent driving, and the limited scope of the revision court in re-appreciating evidence.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the conviction imposed by the order dated 14.06.2022 in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, confirming the judgment and sentence in C.C.No.276 of 2006 dated 03.11.2020.)

1. This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed against the judgment dated 14.06.2022 passed in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 03.11.2020 passed in C.C.No.276 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.

2. The respondent police registered a case initially against two persons, namely the driver and owner of the vehicle. Subsequently, the case was closed as against the owner of the vehicle. Then, the case was tried against the accused, who is the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-23-Q-7373. After investigation, laid a charge sheet and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.276 of 2006 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam, Vellore District. After trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C (21 counts) for each count and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the offence under section 338 IPC (24 counts) for each count and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A)IPC (10 counts) for each count.

3. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Magistrate, the accused has filed an appeal before the Sessions Court and the same was taken on file in Crl.A.No.76 of 2021 and the case was made over to the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Ranipet, Vellore District. The II Additional District and Session Judge, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and considered the materials, re-appreciated the evidence and dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment of the trial court. Challenging the said judgment of dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner has submitted that none of the witnesses have spoken about that the accident had occurred only due to rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner and all the witnesses have stated that after hearing heavy sound from the tyre of the bus, the bus fell into the river. He further submitted that through the narrow bridge, only one vehicle can pass through at a time and the vehicle cannot go with high speed. It can move only with moderate speed. Further he would submit that the accident could not have taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. Even in the prosecution side, it is stated that the vehicle was not properly maintained and that be the case, when the owner of the vehicle himself got discharged from the case, the driver alone is not responsible to that accident and there is no fault on the part of the revision petitioner. Since out of 55 passengers, 45 of them got injured, some of them sustained simple injury and some of them sustained grievous injury and nearly 10 passengers were died, the Trial Court without any substantiative evidence, based only on sympathy ground, convicted the petitioner. The First Appellate Court also without re-appreciating the entire evidence, simply endorsed the view of the learned Trial Judge, confirmed the judgment of the trial court.

5. He further submitted that the Motor Vehicle Inspector one who conducted the inspection soon after the occurrence, was not examined before the Court. The officer one who has not conducted the inspection was examined as P.W.26. Therefore, his evidence cannot be taken into