ORDER :

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is directed against the judgment in C.A. No. 44 of 2021 of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai in C.C. No. 538 of 2011, while modifying the sentence.

2. The occurrence relates to a road traffic accident on 11.10.2011 at about 9.45 a.m. near Royal Court, Melaveli Road, Madurai, resulting in injuries to P.W.1 Suresh Kumar and the death of his wife Mary Clara Pushpam.

Gist of the Trial Court Judgment in C.C. No. 538 of 2011:

3. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 279, 338, 304-A IPC and Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (herein after reffered to as “M.V Act”). On the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined and Exs.P1 to P12 marked. No defence evidence was adduced.

4. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Trial Court found that the Government bus TN-58-N-1947, driven by the accused, hit the rear of the two-wheeler TN-58-K-1697 ridden by P.W.1, causing grievous injuries to P.W.1 and fatal head injuries to the pillion rider, Mary Clara Pushpam. The Motor Vehicle Inspector (P.W.8) noted paint/scrape marks consistent with a rear-impact scenario and ruled out mechanical defects in both vehicles (Ex.P7 & Ex.P8). P.W.9 (post-mortem doctor) opined death due to head injury. Observation mahazar witnesses (P.W.4 & P.W.5) supported scene documentation; P.W.7 (SI) and P.W.11 (IO) spoke to prompt registration, alteration to Section 304-A IPC on the victim’s demise, inquest, and investigation.

5. Holding that the manner of the occurrence itself spoke to negligence (rear-end impact; “res ipsa loquitur”), the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 M.V. Act for want of proof but convicted him under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC and imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and fine Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Sec.279, rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fine Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only), in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Sec.338, and rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine Rs.1,000, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Sec.304-A, all concurrent.

Gist of the Appellate Judgment in C.A. No. 44 of 2021:

6. In appeal, the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirmed the conviction under Sections 279, 338 and 304-A IPC, upholding the learned Trial Court’s reliance on (i) the rear-impact pattern borne out by Ex.P7/Ex.P8, (ii) the consistent ocular account of P.W.1 (injured witness), (iii) the corroborative scene evidence of P.W. 4/P.W.5 and (iv) the medical evidence of P.W.9. Minor inconsistencies were held natural, given the lapse of time and the injured status of P.W. 1 at the time of the statement. On sentence, the learned Appellate Court, considering age/family circumstances, partly allowed the appeal only to reduce the substantive sentence under Section 304-A IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment, and the acquittal under Section 134(a)(b) r/w 187 M.V. Act remained undisturbed.

Grounds in Revision:

7. In revision, the petitioner urges, inter alia that misappreciation of evidence; conviction allegedly contrary to weight of evidence; reliance on interested testimony of P.W.1 in the absence of independent eyewitnesses. Both the learned Trial and Appellate courts failed to apply the settled test that Section 304-A liability requires the act to be the proximate (causa causans) cause of death, not merely a sine qua non. Presence of multiple speed breakers near the locus, the petitioner claims careful driving post those breakers, thereby negating rashness. Abdul Subhan v. State, 2007 Cri LJ 1089 (Del.) was relied on for the proposition that “high speed” per se is not rashness and stressing the need for proper scene investigation includi