IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :21.09.2021 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN CRL.R.C.No.801 of 2019 Dayalan ... Petitioner Versus State through the Inspector of Police, Thiruvannamalai East Police Station, Thiruvannamalai District. ...

Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment made in C.A.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai convicting the petitioner under section 279 of I.P.C to pay fine of Rs.400/- and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks and under section 337 (2 counts ) of I.P.C to pay fine of Rs.200/- each and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 weeks and under section 304(A) of I.P.C to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months and to pay a fine of Rs.400/- and i/d to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks by confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.124 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Arul Raj for M/s.J.Lenin For Respondent : Mr,M.Sugendran Government Advocate, (Criminal Side)

ORDER

This Criminal Revision Petition has been filed to set aside the judgment dated 04.07.2019 passed in C.A.No.6 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvannamalai, confirming the judgment dated 03.09.2018 passed in C.C.No.124 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai.

2. The respondent police registered a case against the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 279, 337 (two counts) and 304(A) I.P.C. After completing the investigation, laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Thiruvannamalai. The learned Magistrate taken cognizance of the case in C.C.No.124 of 2014 and after completing trial, convicted the petitioner for the offence under sections 279, 337 (two counts) and 304(A) I.P.C.

3. Challenging the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvannamalai. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, taken the appeal on file in Crl.A.No.6 of 2019 and after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and considered the materials, re- appreciated the evidence and dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment of the trial court. Again challenging the said judgment of dismissal, the petitioner has filed the present Revision Petition before this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is not involved in the commission of offence as alleged by the prosecution. Without having driving license and without knowing how to ride the two wheeler, P.W.1 and 2 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tamil Nadu Government Bus bearing registration No.T.N.25-N-0356. Hence, the occurrence has taken place. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence, convicted the petitioner and the appellate court also without re-appreciating the entire evidence, simply endorsed the views of the Judicial Magistrate, dismissed the appeal, which warrants interference of this Court.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2 are the eye witnesses and they supported the case of the prosecution. The Tamil Nadu Government Bus bearing registration No.T.N.25-N-0356 which was driven by the petitioner came behind the two wheeler in which, P.W.1 is the rider and P.W.2 and the deceased are pillion riders. The petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler, due to which, P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased sustained injuries and hence, he committed the offence punishable under sections 279, 337(2 counts) and 304(a) I.P.C. The prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence of eye witnesses, medical evidence, post-mortem report, clearly shows that the deceased died due to acci