The court upheld the conviction for causing death by rash and negligent driving, emphasizing the sufficiency of eyewitness testimony and vehicle reports, while clarifying the limited scope of revision in criminal cases.

ORDER :

The Criminal Revision petition has been filed against the judgment dated 28.01.2025 passed in Crl.A.No.37 of 2024 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence order passed in C.C.No.361 of 2020 dated 16.05.2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-IV, Vellore.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 08.01.2020 at about 7.15 a.m., one Venkatesan was riding his two wheeler Hero Honda Splendor Plus bearing Registration No.TN 05 X 7456 from Bangalore to Chennai National Highways at Poigai over bridge on the left side, at that time, the petitioner, who drove Ashok Leyland Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 23 CE 5605 behind the deceased, came in a rash and negligent manner and had overtaken the vehicle of the deceased and suddenly drove on the right side and then back to the left side without giving any indication or horn and thereby, the said Venkatesan hit the lorry. Due to the said impact, the rider of the two wheeler sustained head injury and admitted in the hospital, and later he died and thereby, the accused has committed an offences under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC and thereby, a case in Crime No.8 of 2020 was registered against the petitioner.

3. After receipt of the final report, the learned Magistrate questioned the accused for the charges under Sections 279 and 304 A IPC on 06.01.2021, which was denied by the accused and pleaded not guilty and to be tried.

4. In order to prove the case before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 9 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced and no documentary evidence was produced.

5. The de-facto complainant-Murugan and one Periyappa were cited as eye witnesses and they were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2. Based on the evidence of eye witnesses, medical evidence and motor vehicles' inspection report, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner was found guilty for the offences under Sections 279 and 304.A IPC and convicted and sentenced him as under :

6. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.37 of 2024 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore. The Appellate Court had re- appreciated the entire materials and dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the present revision before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the relatives to the deceased and they are not eye witness to the occurrence. If at all they were eye witness to the said occurrence, they ought to have gone along with the deceased to the Government Hospital in "108 Ambulance". However, the Accident Register does not show that P.W.1 and P.W.2 brought the deceased to the hospital. The trial Court failed to consider the fact that the investigating officer in the rough sketch mentioned that no tyre marks have been present in the scene of occurrence. If any accident occurs due to rash and negligent manner, there would have been some tyre marks in the scene of occurrence. He further submitted that there are discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the alleged accident and the same has not been proved in the manner known to law. P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were cited as eye witnesses, are the chance witnesses, and in order to get compensation from the petitioner, they set up a false case. Further, the prosecution has not proved that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident and th