IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.06.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.727 of 2023 Azhagiri .... Petitioner Versus State Rep.by The Sub Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

(Crime No.30 of 2011) .... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018 dated 10.06.2020 on the file of III Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Tirupattur in confirming the order of conviction dated 27.02.2018 passed in C.C.No.156 of 2013 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Tirupattur.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.A.Sanjay Prasanna for M/s.Deepanuday For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed as against the concurrent findings of conviction rendered by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Tirupattur in C.C.No.156 of 2013, which was confirmed by the appellate Court in Crl.A.No.5 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, for the offences punishable under Sections 297, 337 (13 counts), 338 (8 counts)

and 304A (4 counts) of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 12.01.2011, the petitioner was driving a private bus bearing registration No. TN 30 H 3344 in a rash and negligent manner on the Salem National Highways near korati petrol bunk. He lost his control of the vehicle and collided with a Tavera car bearing registration number TN 23 BZ 6825, which was coming from the opposite direction. Due to the said accident, a First Information Report was registered in Crime No.30 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 297, 337 (13 counts), 338 (8 counts) and 304A (4 counts) of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the same has been taken cognizance before the trial Court.

3. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.29 and marked thirty-six (36) documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P36. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

4. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 297of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months; for the offence under section 337 (13 counts) of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for each count; for the offence under section 338 (8 counts) of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months for each count; for the offence under Section 304A (4 counts) of IPC, he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 years for each count. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

5. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed, confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Hence the present revision case.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the charges, as no witnesses had stated that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligence manner. The basic requirements to convict a person under section 304 A of IPC are absent in this case. Though the prosecution has examined 29 witnesses to support their case, in support of his contention, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1069 of 2011 held in the case of Vijayendran Vs. State by Inspector of Police. In which, this Court held that the death of a person should have been caused by a rash and negligent act of the accused. The crux of the offence under section 304 A IPC is commission of a rash and negligent act. Mere fast driving does not constitute an offence under section 304 A IPC. He further submitted that though the prosecution examined 29 witnesses, none of them identified the petitioner as the person who was driving the bus at the time of the accident.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the deposition of PW.25, who is none other than