ORDER

This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order passed by the learned XVI Additional Session Judge, Chennai, on 16.07.2018 in C.A.No.399 of 2017, thereby confirming the order passed by the learned IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, dated 20.11.2017 in C.C.No.12983 of 2009, thereby convicting the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, 304(A)(2 counts) of IPC and Section 134(A) & (B) of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as “the MV Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 27.05.2009, at about

9.50 p.m., one Tavera Car bearing Registration No.TN09AU6369, which was driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner in G.N.Chetty Street, T.Nagar, Chennai and hit the Hero Honda Motor Cycle which was traveling in front of the said car and turned to right side and hit one auto due to which, the auto driver and one passenger were died and other passengers who were traveling in the auto, sustained simple and grievous injuries. On the said complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.193/2009 for the offences under Sections 279, 338, 337, 304(A) (2 counts) of IPC and Sections 134(A) & (B) of the MV Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed charge sheet and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial in C.C.No.12983 of 2009 as against the petitioner.

3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidences the trial Court found the guilt of the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338 of IPC, three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 of IPC, two years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC (2 counts), three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 134(A) of the MV Act and also three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 134(B) of the MV Act.

Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order passed by the trial Court, as against which the present revision.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not identified by any of the witnesses. Even in the examination of the Investigating Officer, he was not supported the case of the prosecution in respect of the identification of the accused. According to the prosecution two persons died and three persons sustained injury. However, the doctor who conducted the autopsy was not examined by the prosecution and the accident report were marked through the Investigating Officers P.W.9 & 10. Therefore, the provision under Section 294(1) of Cr.P.C., was not followed and the entire conviction cannot be sustained as against the petitioner.

4.1. He further submitted that, in fact the motor vehicle report in respect of the alleged Tavera car was not marked through the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who was examined as P.W.3 by the prosecution and the said report was marked through Investigating Officer as Ex.P.18. It is fatal to the prosecution case. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgment:-

(i) Manu/TN/1000/2001 – Jerald vs the State (ii) 2001 (2) MWN (Cr.) 260 – Arumugam Vs. State by the Sub-

Inspector of Police.

4.2. In the judgment reported in Manu/TN/1000/2001 in the case of Jerald vs the State, in which the accused was convicted for the offence under Sections 304-A & 279 of IPC and the same was challenged before this Court and this Court held that non-examination of the doctor is fatal for the prosecution and the contents of the documents are inadmissible as they were not spoken to by the person who prepared it. The doctor who issued the certificate, though according to the prosecu