The principle of res ipsa loquitur shifts the burden of proof to the defendant in cases of negligence, and failure to provide an explanation can lead to adverse findings.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order dated 22.10.2021 passed in C.A.No.18 of 2020 on the file of the learned II-Additional District Judge, Thanjavur District confirming the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur District in C.C.No. 56 of 2016 dated 29.01.2020 and set aside the same.)

1. This Criminal Revision has been filed against the order dated 22.10.2021 passed in C.A.No.18 of 2020 on the file of the learned II-Additional District Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the judgment dated 29.01.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur District in C.C.No.56 of 2016.

2. The trial Court, by judgment dated 29.01.2020 in C.C.No.56 of 2016 convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC; to undergo six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 IPC and to undergo one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- each (3 counts, totally Rs.6000/-), in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A (3 counts) IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned II-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in C.A.No.18 of 2020. The appellate Judge vide order dated 22.10.2021 confirmed the conviction of the trial Court and modified the sentence to the effect that the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for the offence under Section 279 IPC; the petitioner shall pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 IPC; and the petitioner shall undergo six months (for each count) simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment (for each count) for the offence under Section 304-A(3 counts) IPC and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present criminal revision case.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner is the accused in Crime No.109 of 2016 on the file of the respondent police. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.06.2016 at 1.30 p.m, when the deceased Chandrasekar along with his wife Malarmalini and his two children Priyadarshini and Pugazh proceeded in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 07 AF 8925 Hero Honda Splender Plus in Thanjavur Rani Paradise Bridge opposite to Mubarak Palace from east to west direction, driven by Chandrasekar to CPM office, the the Tourist bus bearing Registration No.PY01BD2929 said to have been driven by the petitioner in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said two wheeler. In result, Chandrasekar died on the spot and his children died on the way to hospital and his wife sustained grievous injuries in her head. Therefore, the respondent police registered a case for the alleged offence under Sections 279, 337 and 304A (3 counts) IPC. The investigation officer conducted the investigation and after completion of investigation, he filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thanjavur, for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A (3 counts) IPC, and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.56 of 2016. The learned trial Judge issued summons to the petitioner and on his appearance, documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C, were served to him. Proper charges were framed and the petitioner was questioned and he pleaded not guilty and the case was posted for trial.

4. In order to establish the guilt, on the side of the prosecution, 14 witnesses were examined and 15 documents were marked. After that the learned trial