Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56400
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J
Gopinath – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Pudhupalayam Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District. – Respondent
Crl.RC.No.2224 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M/s.S.L.Venkatesan
For the Respondents: Mr.J.Subbiah, GA (Crl. Side)
Conviction overturned due to lack of sufficient evidence supporting claims of rash driving and negligence resulting in death.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 279, 337, 304(A) - Criminal Revision challenging conviction and sentence for offences related to rash driving and causing death - Trial Court found the petitioner guilty and imposed sentences which were confirmed by the appellate court - On appeal, the conviction was overturned on grounds of evidentiary inconsistencies and insufficient proof of rashness. (Paras 3, 7, 8)
(B) Evidence - Standard of proof - The absence of medical corroboration and the defendant’s lack of injuries raised doubts about the prosecution's case - The appellate court found serious infirmities in the evidence presented, leading to the reconsideration of the conviction. (Paras 7, 8)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner convicted of causing death and injuries due to rash driving, resulting in imprisonment sentences. Eyewitness accounts were contradictory, raising significant doubts about the prosecution's version of events.
Findings of Court:
The trial and appellate court's findings were found insufficient due to contradictions in witness statements and lack of medical evidence to confirm the claims of rash driving.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to support the conviction for the charges of rashness and negligence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the conviction was not supported by credible evidence, necessitating a reevaluation of the case and overturning the preceding judgments.
Result: Conviction and sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision filed against lower court judgement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of the accident and witness statements. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments by both sides regarding evidence. (Para 5) |
| 4. court's reconsideration of evidence leads to a decision. (Para 6 , 7) |
ORDER
This Revision is filed challenging the judgement of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Thiruvannamalai dated 11.09.2023 made in Criminal Appeal No.51 of 2022. By the said judgement, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court - the Judicial Magistrate Court Chengam in CC.No.28 of 2013 dated 16.09.2022 was confirmed. By the said judgement, the trial court found the petitioner guilty of an offence punishable under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code , 1860 and imposed three months simple imprisonment ; of an offence punishable under Section 337 of , 1860 and imposed simple imprisonment for a period of three months ; and of an offence punishable under Section 304 (A) of , 1860 and imposed one month simple imprisonment.
2. The entire factual matrix of this case have been encapsulated by this Court speaking through Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.Nirmal Kumar while passing orders in the Suspension of Sentence on 21.12.2023 and the same is reproduced herewith for ready reference.
“2.The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.28 of 2013 was convicted by the Trial Court by judgment dated 16.09.2022 for offence under Sections 279 , 337 and 304A of IPC and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment for offences under and 337 (each offence) and one year simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304A . Aggrieved against the same, he preferred an appeal before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Crl.A.No.51 of 2022. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 11.09.2023, dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the petitioner/accused filed Crl.R.C.No.2224 of 2023 along with the instant miscellaneous petitions seeking suspension of sentence and bail.
3.The gist of the case is that on 05.06.2011 at about
7.45 p.m., the de-facto complainant's sister (PW2) and her son Adhitya were returning from the provision shop by walking on the left margin of the road. At that time, a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.TN-23-AH-6421 driven by the petitioner/accused proceeding from Chengam to Kuilam Village, came in the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against PW2 and her son, in which, PW2 sustained serious injuries and her son succumbed to the injuries. On the complaint of PW1, above case came to be registered for offence under Sections 279 , 337 and 304A of IPC . PW1 is the eye witness and PW2 is injured eye witness. Both have stated about the manner in which the accident took place. On the complaint of PW1, PW7 registered an F.I.R., took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, recorded statement of the witnesses including injured witness, conducted inquest on the body of deceased Adhitya, sent the body for postmortem, seized vehicle and sent the vehicle for inspection. After recording the statement of witnesses and collecting reports, charge sheet filed in this case.
4.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW7 examined and marked Exs.P1 to P9. On the side of the defence, no witnesses examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court on the evidence of witnesses and the materials produced, had convicted the petitioner as stated above, which was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court.
5.The contention of the petitioner is that in this case, the occurrence took place at the night hours and it is stated that PW1 had seen PW2 and her deceased son Adhitya were walking on the side of the road with the aid of the passing vehicle's light, which is highly improbable. Further, PW1 and PW2 had stated that the vehicle had three rolls after the accident and thereafter it was in a capsized position on the roa
