Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 2167
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Shamim Ahmed, J.
Boopathi - Petitioner
Vs
The State represented by the Inspector of Police Mohanur Police Station, Namakkal - Respondent
Crl.RC.No.851 of 2021
Decided On : 10-01-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Traffic Offences
Act Referred
EVIDENCE ACT : S.154(1), S.154(2)
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.279, S.304(a), S.337, S.338, S.436
Headnote
(B) Evidence - Witness reliability - Evidence from interested witnesses cannot be solely relied upon without corroboration - The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 19, 41)
Facts of the case:
The Revision Petitioner was convicted for causing the death of Kuppusamy in a road accident while driving a car in a rash and negligent manner. The prosecution's case relied on the testimonies of the deceased's family members, who were deemed interested witnesses. (Paras 1, 2)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of rash and negligent driving, leading to the acquittal of the Revision Petitioner. (Paras 46, 47)
Issues: Whether the trial courts' convictions were justifiable based on the evidence presented. (Paras 13, 41)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution did not establish the essential elements of rash and negligent driving required for conviction under the relevant IPC sections, leading to the conclusion that the accused was not guilty. (Paras 31, 46)
Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed; convictions set aside and the accused acquitted.
What is the standard of proof required to convict under Sections 279, 338, and 304A IPC in cases relying on interested witnesses?
What factors determine whether prosecution evidence is sufficient to prove rash and negligent driving beyond reasonable doubt?
What is the appellate court’s conclusion regarding the sufficiency and reliability of the prosecution evidence, and what is the resulting disposition of the case?
Legal Category Hierarchy
- criminal law
- evidence
- practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure code
- sections (Para 27)
- indian penal code
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz
For the Respondent: Mr.A.Gopinath, GA(Crl.Side)
ORDER :
Shamim Ahmed, J.
1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed, against the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 21.10.2021 made in CA.No.48 of 2021, by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act at Namakkal, confirming the judgement of conviction and sentence, dated 24.02.2021, made in CC.No.116 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal, thereby convicting and sentencing the Revision Petitioner/Accused, Boopathi, for the offences under Section 279 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment and under Section 338 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment and under Section 304A of IPC to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment.
2. The case of the Prosecution, arisen on the basis of the complaint, Ex.P3, First Information Report, given by the defacto complainant, PW.1, Jagadeeswaran, registered in Crime No.376 of 2016 at the Mohanur Police Station for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC, is as follows:-
(a) When on 30.10.2016 at about 2.15 p.m., the father of the defacto complainant, Kuppusamy, was riding his two wheeler, bearing Reg.No.TN 48 the 9193, on the left side of the road towards North direction, in Mohanur to Karur Road, along with his wife, Chellammal, PW.3, as a pillion rider, at Vangal Bridge, a Car, bearing Reg.No.TN 88 A 7243, coming in the opposite direction and driven by the Revision Petitioner/ accused, Boopathi, in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the said two wheeler and caused the accident. In the above said accident, both the rider and the pillion rider of the said two wheeler sustained grievous injuries and the rider, Kuppusamy died on the way to Hospital. Hence, for such acts, the Respondent Police, after conducting investigation, had filed a charge sheet against the Revision Petitioner/ accused for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC before the Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal.
3. The case was taken on file in CC.No.116 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate II, Namakkal. After receipt of summons from the Trial Court, when the accused appeared in person before the Trial Court, copies of the documents were served on them under Section 207 of Cr.PC. After giving sufficient time to the accused and after hearing the accused and considering the documents, necessary charges were framed for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304A of IPC. Since the accused had denied the charges and pleaded not guilty of the aforesaid charges and claimed to be tried, in order to bring home the charges against the accused, the Prosecution examined the following 11 witnesses, as PW.1 to PW.8 and marked 9 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P9.
1. PW.1 = Jagadeeswaran
2. PW.2 = Praveen, relative of PW.1, (eye witness)
3. PW.3 = Chellammal, wife of the deceased (eye witness)
4. PW.4 = Radhika (hearsay witness)
5. PW.5 = Gopalakrishnan (mahazar witness)
6. PW.6 = Nithyanandam (mahazar (witness)
7. PW.7 = Vijayan, Sub Inspector of Police
8. PW.8 = Elango, Investigating Officer
1. Ex.P1 = Complaint given by PW.1
2. Ex.P2 = Observation mahazar
3. Ex.P3 = First Information Report
4. Ex.P4 = Rough Sketch
5. Ex.P5 = Inquest Report
6. Ex.P6 = Post-mortem certificate
7. Ex.P7 = MVI Report of Two Wheeler
8. Ex.P8 = MVI Report of the Car
9. Ex.P9 = Wound Certificate of Chellammal
4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the Prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC, as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses against him, the accused had come with the version of total denial and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case. On the side the accused, one Subramani was examined as DW.1 and no document was marked.
5. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the Revision Petitioner guilty and awarded punishments, as refe
