IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.R.C.No.513 of 2022 Mohan ... Petitioner Versus State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Krishnapuram Police Station, Dharmapuri District.

(Crime No.332/2017) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 Cr.P.C. to set aside the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri made in Crl.A.No.5 of 2019 dated 09.08.2021 and sentence was confirmed against the petitioner in C.C.No.95 of 2018 dated 10.01.2019 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Jayachandran For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

ORDER

The petitioner/accused was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dharmapuri in C.C.No.95 of 2018 by judgment dated 10.01.2019 and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court in C.A.No.5 of 2019. The learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri, by judgment dated 09.08.2021, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the Trial Court but modified the sentenced from two years simple imprisonment to six months simple imprisonment. Against which, the present revision is filed.

2.The gist of the case is that on 31.12.2017 at about 3.15 p.m., one Chinnapappa of Seerampatty Village, Krishnapuram Taluk went to a Petty shop to purchase betel leaves and nut. After purchase, she returned back to her home by walking in the mud road, at that time, a two wheeler Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.TN-29-AE-8272 driven by the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the said Chinnapappa and she was dragged for some distance, in which, she sustained injuries and fracture on her left leg and left hand. She was taken to the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri in 108 Ambulance where the Doctor declared her dead. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint to P.W.15/Sub- Inspector of Police who registered FIR/Ex.P5. P.W.16 took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch, recorded the statement of witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, conducted inquest, sent the body for Postmortem and the two wheeler to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection. After receipt of Postmortem certificate/Ex.P3 and Motor Vehicle Inspection report/Ex.P4, charge sheet filed. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.16 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 marked on the side of the prosecution and on the side of the defence, no witness examined and no documents marked. The Trial Court on conclusion of trial convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment which the Lower Appellate Court modified and reduced to six months simple imprisonment. Against which, the present revision filed.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the deceased Chinnapappa who was having hearing impairment crossed the road without noticing the vehicle and despite honking of horns, she failed to move away from the path, thereby she contributed to the accident. He would submit that in this case the petitioner, who is the rider of the two wheeler, sustained serious injuries. Further, the projected eye witnesses not stated anything about the injuries sustained by the petitioner in the earlier statement and hence, their presence becomes doubtful. P.W.1/complainant, who is the son of the deceased, admits that he has not seen the accident. He would further submit that P.W.2 to P.W.5, who are the projected eye witnesses, are closely related to the deceased. The evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.5 are contradictory to each other which would confirm that they were not present in the scene of occurrence. P.W.10 and P.W.11 are the witnesses for observation mahazar and rough sketch. P.W.10 states that he had signed the observation mahazar along