JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is directed as against the judgment passed in S.C.No.56 of 2017 dated 19.01.2018 on the file of the XIX Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence under Section

279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC (2 counts).

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, stated that on 10.04.2015 at about 1.30 p.m. when the appellant was driving a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-05-L-4043 at Melpatti Ponnappa Mudali Street, near Fire Station, in a rash and negligent manner from west direction and hit one motor cycle which was came from his behind, in which three persons were travelled, out of them, two persons were died on the spot, since the wheel of the lorry ran over on their heads and one person sustained injuries on his head. Hence, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.94 of 2015 for the offence under Section 279, 338 and 304(A)

(2 counts) of IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 279, 304(A) (2 counts) and 338 of IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

4. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no document was marked.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the appellant guilty and convicted him for the offence under Section 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC (2 counts) and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the commission of offence under Section 279 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the commission for the offence under Section 338 IPC and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years each for each count of commission of offence under Section 304(A) of IPC (2 counts). Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court convicted the appellant only on the presumption and surmises and brushed aside the evidence of the witnesses. None of the prosecution witnesses deposed that the appellant had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the two wheeler, which was driven by one of the deceased in a rash and negligent manner and hit the lorry on its right sight rear wheel and thereafter, ran over not only on the rider of the motor cycle and also one of the pillion rider. Due to which, one of the person sustained head injury. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the accident was caused. While immediately after the accident, the lorry was stopped on the spot of the accident and the appellant surrendered in the fire service station which is located near the place of accident. If at all, the appellant drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner definitely he could not stop the vehicle on the spot. The fault is on the three person, who drove the bike, are minors at the time of accident. They were studying IX Standard and as such, they did not possess any driving licence to ride the two wheeler. The two wheeler, which was involved in the accident, is 350 CC vehicle viz., TVS Apachi and it is high speed vehicle, which was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. Unfortunately, two persons died due to the said accident for which the appellant is no way be held liable.

7. The total width of the road is 45 feet. The lorry, which was driven by the appellant from west to east direction, was on the left hand side of the road, viz., 21st feet from left hand side. Whereas, the deceased had driven the two wheeler from east to west direction in a rash and negligent manner on the 24th feet of right hand side road. It shows that the two