The court established that failure to provide medical assistance and report an accident constitutes an offense under the Motor Vehicles Act, reaffirming the obligation of drivers involved in accidents to comply with mandatory legal duties.

COMMON ORDER

B. Anandan, the accused in C.C. No. 1926 of 2012, and Juliet Dola Rose, P.W. 10 in the same case, have filed these two criminal revisions feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court. They are therefore taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

2. On 28.07.2011, when P.W.15, Ravichandran, was on duty at D6 Anna Square Police Station, Raja, son of Selvam, lodged a complaint stating that he was working as a painter. While he was finishing his work on that day, i.e., on 27.07.2011, at about 10:45 p.m., he was sitting near the Avvaiyar statue. At that time, it suddenly started raining, and he ran to a nearby bus shelter. A black car, coming from south to north on Kamarajar Salai, was driven at high speed and, near the Avvaiyar statue, turned right to enter the beach. It hit a motorcycle coming from north to south. The car continued inside the beach without stopping and drove away. The motorcycle rider fell down after the incident. Nearby persons informed the 108 ambulance, which arrived and examined the injured person, pronouncing him dead. He had suffered severe injuries to his right leg. The motorcycle’s registration number was TN-07-BJ-0321. After his relatives arrived and his identity was later confirmed as Ruban Kumar, son of Muthukrishnan, the complaint requested action against the person who caused the accident and fled without stopping the vehicle.

3. Based on the said allegations, P.W.15 registered a case in Cr.No.249 of 2011 for the alleged offence u/s 304(A) IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the MV Act') and commenced investigation. After completing the investigation, he submitted a final report proposing the accused Anandan as guilty of the offences u/s 304(A) IPC and 184, 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of the MV Act and 158 (1)(c) r/w 177 of the MV Act. When the case was taken on file, summons were issued to the accused, and copies were furnished. When questioned about the charges, the accused denied the offences and pleaded not guilty.

4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.15, and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.18 were marked. During the trial, the defence marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.12. On behalf of P.W.10, the intervenor, Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.9 were also marked.

5. Upon being questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating evidence on record, the accused denied it as false. Thereafter, no oral evidence was presented on behalf of the defence. The trial court considered the parties' case. Firstly, it was observed that the complaint did not include the registration number provided by the first informant. The first informant, a thi^rd party who witnessed the accident, was also not examined by the prosecution. The other eyewitness, P.W.1, did not provide the vehicle's registration number. Similarly, P.W.5, who claimed to have chased the vehicle, also did not notice the registration number but only reported that a member of the public informed them that the car’s number was 1487. The trial court then considered the evidence of P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, and concluded that identifying the car as 1487 was not clearly proven by the prosecution. Coupled with the facts and the defence’s version that they had already scheduled the car’s servicing at a service centre, the trial court rejected the prosecution’s claim that the Ford Figo was left for servicing only after the accident. The court then examined the repair order in Ex.D.2 and disbelieved the prosecution’s account concerning the damage to the car. Acco