Conviction for causing death due to negligence was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and failure to properly admit key evidentiary documents.

ORDER :

The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi (Trial Court) vide judgment, dated 05.03.2019 in C.C.No.41 of 2013 and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three weeks for offence under Section 279 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore (Lower Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.34 of 2019 and the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 25.02.2022 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court.

Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is filed.

2.Gist of the case is that the respondent Police registered an FIR (Ex.P3) in Crime No.118 of 2013 for offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC against the petitioner on the complaint given by PW1/defacto complainant, the brother of the deceased Saraswathi. The case is that on 24.01.2013 at about 06.45 p.m., near Rajalinga Nagar Bus Stand (Chitoor- Katpadi Road), when PW1 sister Saraswathi had gone to purchase groceries in a provision shop, at that time the petitioner who came in his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-23-BC-6329 from North to South in Chitoor-Katpadi Road in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased Saraswathi. Due to which, the deceased Saraswathi sustained injuries on her head, hands and all over her body and died on the spot. The defacto complainant/PW1 who had come to purchase medicines in a nearby medical shop, saw the accident and found the petitioner coming in his bike in a rash and negligent manner without headlight. Immediately, PW1 called his brother/PW2 through phone and thereafter both of them, took their injured sister to the hospital in an auto where the Doctor on examination declared brought dead.

3.On the next day, i.e., 25.01.2013, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to PW10 who registered FIR (Ex.P3) in Crime No.118 of 2013 against the petitioner. PW9/Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P4) in presence of witnesses, recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and other witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, sent the two wheeler of the petitioner for motor vehicle inspection, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and sent the body for postmortem. After collecting postmortem report (Ex.P6) and Motor Vehicle Inspection report (Ex.P5), charge sheet filed before the Trial Court. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, ten witnesses examined as PW1 to PW10 and six documents marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court as stated above and the same was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it was projected that statements of all witnesses (PW1 to PW10) recorded on 25.01.2013, it was sent to the Court belatedly along with the charge sheet. The Postmortem Doctor was examined on 12.02.2013 and the two wheeler involved in the accident produced on 11.02.2013 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector statement recorded on 12.02.2013. On the very same day, along with the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P6) and the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P5) charge sheet filed before the Trial Court. He further submitted that PW1/defacto complainant, brother of the deceased Saraswathi who is projected as eye witne