Criminal liability for negligence requires clear evidence of rashness; mere occurrence of an accident does not imply guilt.

ORDER :

The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.19 of 2016 was convicted by the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate No.I, Walajahpet (Trial Court) by judgment dated 06.07.2019 for the offence under section 279 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.9,000/-, in default to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. Against which, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.69 of 2019 before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet (Lower Appellate Court) and the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 06.03.2021 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court, against which, the present revision petition is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case is that on 16.08.2015, at about 03.10 p.m., when the defacto complainant/PW1 was sitting on the porch, at that time his daughter Megala, aged about three years and the daughter of PW2 & PW3 viz., Nisha/deceased, aged about three years, were standing right side of Kalavai to Thimir Road. At that time, a bus viz., Janatha bearing Reg.No.TN-23BC-2074 driven by the petitioner came on the right side of the road in a rash and negligent and dashed against the deceased Nisha and the front right wheel of the bus ran over on the deceased. Due to which, the head, right and left shoulder of the deceased crushed and she died on the spot. The petitioner got down from the bus and escaped from the scene of occurrence. Thereafter, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to PW7/Investigating Officer. On receipt of the complaint, PW7 registered FIR (Ex.P3) in Crime No.277 of 2015 for offence under Sections 279 & 304(A) of IPC against the petitioner, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P4), enquired the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, sent the body to the Government Hospital, Arcot for Postmortem, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased, prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P6), sent the bus for Motor Vehicle Inspection, recorded the statement of the Doctor on 18.08.2015, collected Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P6) and also collected Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P7) and arrested the petitioner. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed before the Trial Court.

3. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, seven witnesses examined as PW1 to PW7 and eight documents marked as Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the petitioner as stated above and the same was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the projected eye witnesses to the accident taken place on 16.08.2015 are PW1, PW3 and PW5. PW1 in his evidence stated that on the fateful day, when he was sitting on the porch, his daughter and the daughter of PW2 & PW3 were standing on the right side of Kalavai-Thimiri road, at that time the bus driven by the petitioner caused the accident. PW5 in his evidence stated that when he was standing in Kalavai-Thimiri road, the bus involved in the accident came and attempted to overtake TATA Ace. At that time, the deceased treaded into the road and the right side front wheel of the bus ran over on the deceased. The version of PW1, PW3 and PW5 with regard to presence of TATA Ace are contradictory to each other. Added to it, PW1 and PW3 stated that the petitioner dashed against the deceased Nisha when she was standing on the right side of the road, but PW5 in his evidence stated that when the bus was overtaking the TATA Ace, the deceased/Nisha suddenly entered the road and sustained injury. Thus, the evidence of the eye witnesses to the occurrence are contradictory to each other and it cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction.