JUDGMENT :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

28.04.2022 in S.C.No.18 of 2019 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Perambalur.

2. The appellant, an ex-serviceman, was convicted and sentenced by the trial court as detailed below:-

3. According to the prosecution, the appellant, on attaining superannuation from the Military service, was working as a security officer in the Ramco Cement Factory at Ariyalur. On 10.05.2018 after his duty, he had taken his Hyundai Verna car bearing Registration No.TN46 S 4594 to Trichy junction, where he consumed alcohol along with his friends and thereafter, he proceeded to his native. At 00.10 hours on 11.05.2018, while he was driving his car in a rash and negligent manner in the Trichy-Chennai National Highway, about 200 metres in the north of Perambalur four-road overbridge, opposite to one Om Sakthi Workshop, the appellant's car had hit the centre median.

4. Due to the rash speed, the car, after hitting the median, toppled and crossed the median and fell on a Chevrolet Tavera car bearing Registration No.TN21 AP 3396, which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the impact of the accident and damage suffered, 9 persons who were travelling in the Chevrolet Tavera car, including children, women and the owner of the car, had died on the spot and the driver also thereafter died in the hospital. A Toyota Etios car bearing Registration No.PY01 CD 6474, which came behind the Chevrolet Tavera car also hit the vehicle, in which the owner of the Etios car/PW1 and her two daughters, sustained injuries.

5. Based on the complaint/Ex.P1 given by PW1, FIR/Ex.P24 was registered by the Inspector of Police/PW25 under Section 174 of Cr.P.C. PW25 arrested the accused. The Investigating Officer/PW29, on completing the investigation, filed the final report.

6. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Perambalur, took up the case, issued summons to the accused and complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. Since the offences are triable by the court of session, the magistrate committed the case to the Principal District Court under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. On committal, the trial court framed the charges under Sections 279, 337 (3 counts) and 304-A (9 counts) IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial.

7. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW29 and marked exhibits Ex.P1 to Ex.P46. On completion of the prosecution evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. based on the incriminating materials, he denied the same. However, the accused neither examined any witnesses nor produced any documents. The trial court, on appraising the evidences and arguments, convicted the appellant under Sections 279, 337 (3 counts) and 304-A (9 counts) IPC and imposed the sentence as stated supra. However, acquitted the appellant under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

8. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed, the accused has preferred the above appeal.

9. Mr.Babu Rangasamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:-

i. There is absolutely no evidence available on record to prove that the appellant drove the car in a rash and negligent manner, which resulted in the accident.

ii. There is no eye-witness except PW4, who had also turned hostile. The presence of PW4 in the workshop at 12.10 am was highly improbable and even his statement is that only on hearing the sound he went to the accident s