IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
Sadikbasha - Petitioner
Versus
The State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Kolathur Police Station – Respondent
Crl.R.C. No.875 of 2021
Decided On : 03-02-2025
ORDER :
(M. NIRMAL KUMAR, J.)
The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Mettur in C.C.No.39 of 2015 and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC , to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 IPC and to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC , by judgment dated 08.11.2019. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.241 of 2019. The learned Additional District Judge, Additional District (Fast Track) Court, Mettur dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court by judgment dated 21.12.2020. Against which, the present revision is filed.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 23.10.2014 at about 5.00 p.m., the deceased had driven the Hero Honda Splendor bike bearing registration No.TN-38-S-5108 with P.W.1 as pillion rider proceeding from Kolathur to Chennampatty road, near Kannamoochi cross road on the left side corner of the road, at that time, the bus being registration No.TN-52-B-5577 driven by the petitioner was coming from Kannamoochi road towards Kolathur in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bike driven by the deceased and caused accident, thereby both the deceased and P.W.1 were thrown away from the bike, in which, P.W.1 sustained simple injury on his head, left leg and abrasion on his body whereas the deceased sustained injuries on his head, left eyebrow, left leg, ears, nose and died due to the accident. The relatives of the deceased who were following in the Omni van, namely, P.W.8 and P.W.9 saw the accident, took the injured and the deceased in an ambulance to the Government Hospital where P.W.4/Casualty Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Mettur treated P.W.1 and P.W.11 is the Postmortem Doctor. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.14 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no documents marked. The trial Court on conclusion of trial found the petitioner guilty and convicted him as stated above. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence.
3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in this case, P.W.1, P.W.8 and P.W.9 are projected as eye witnesses. P.W.1, who is an injured witness admits that on 23.10.2014 after the accident and on sustaining injury, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Mettur, at that time, the Police had come there, enquired him and thereafter, on the next day, the Police came back and recorded statement from him, which was marked as Ex.P1. As per the statement/Ex.P1, P.W.1 and the deceased Purushothaman were coming back after worship from Madeswaranmalai in a bike and when they were coming near Chennampatty – Kannamoochi division road, a bus driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner dashed against them and caused the accident, in which, both the deceased and P.W.1 were thrown away from the bike. If that is the case, the place shown in the rough sketch/Ex.P7 as scene of occurrence is contrary to the statement of P.W.1. He would submit that the presence of P.W.8 and P.W.9 is also highly artificial. P.W.8 states that he had driven the Omni van and he was coming 100 meters behind the bike. It is a link road with curves and it is highly impossible for P.W.8 to see the accident in 100 meters. Further, P.W.8 admits that there was heavy rain on that day and hence, he could not have seen the occurrence. P.W.9, a relative who is said to have travelled in the Omni van states that 10 minutes after the accident when P.W.1 and the deceased were lying in the road, he went there
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner acted with rashness or negligence, leading to the acquittal.
The prosecution must prove the appellant's identity and culpability beyond a reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
Criminal liability for negligence requires clear evidence of rashness; mere occurrence of an accident does not imply guilt.
The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt to secure a conviction for rash and negligent driving.
Conviction for causing death due to negligence was overturned due to unreliable eyewitness accounts and failure to properly admit key evidentiary documents.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused acted with rashness or negligence; insufficient evidence led to the acquittal of the petitioner.
The prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt that the accused drove in a rash and negligent manner to secure a conviction under IPC sections 279 and 304(A); insufficient evidence can lead t....
Accusation of negligence requires proof of rash and negligent driving; high speed alone does not establish guilt in criminal law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.