IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 02.07.2019 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.605 of 2012 Rajan .. Petitioner Vs.

State represented by its Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station, Erode.

(Crime No.744 of 2006)

.. Respondent Criminal Revision filed under Sections 397(i) and 401 Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 16.03.2012 made in Crl.A.No.89 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, confirmed the judgment dated 19.07.2011 made in C.C.No.1243 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Nagarajan For respondents : Mr.T.Shanmugarajeswaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

***

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the judgment dated

16.03.2012 made in Crl.A.No.89 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, by confirming the judgment dated 19.07.2011 made in C.C.No.1243 of 2006 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode.

2. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.744 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC against the revision petitioner/accused. After completing investigation, the respondent police filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.1243/2006. After trial, the learned Magistrate found that the revision petitioner committed the offence under Sections 279 and 304A IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default, one week simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC and one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304A IPC by a judgment dated 19.07.2011. Challenging the said judgment, the accused preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.89 of 2011 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the arguments on either side and considered the materials placed before it, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court by a judgment dated 16.03.2012. There against, the accused preferred the present revision before this Court.

3. This revision has been filed in the year 2012 and it is pending for more than 7 years. Despite several opportunities given by this Court, the revision petitioner has not come forward to proceed the revision. Heard the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. Perused the entire materials available on records.

4. It is the case of the prosecution that the revision petitioner is the driver of the bus bearing registration No.TN-33-N/1584 belongs to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation. On 24.09.2006 at 12.40 p.m when the victim was returning from Thindal to Perundurai Road, the accused drove the bus from Erode to Perundurai. A bullock cart was proceeding ahead of the bus and during the course of overtaking the bullock cart, the accused hit against the motorcyclist and dragged to some extent and stopped the bus. The motorcyclist/ victim sustained head injury and died on the spot. PW-4 is the eye-witness, who was also proceeding from Erode to Perundurai in motorcycle and at that time, he saw the occurrence. PW-4 went to Veerappanchatram Police Station and lodged the complaint/Ex.P1. PW-2 is the wife and PWs-3 and 5 are children of the deceased and after hearing the news, they rushed to the spot.

5. PWs-1 and 4 are cited as eye-witnesses on the side of the prosecution.

On a careful reading of the evidence of PW-4, it is seen that he has clearly narrated the occurrence and he only lodged the complaint before the respondent police. PW-1 has stated that he has also seen the occurrence and also corroborated the evidence of PW-4. PWs-2, 3 and 5 are only hearsay witnesses, who went to the spot after hearing the news. PW-7, who is the Assistant Engineer working in the Jeeva Transport Corporation, Goundapadi branch, has