Clear evidence of rashness or negligence is required for conviction under IPC; discrepancies in witness testimonies can create reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.

ORDER

Preface of the case:

This Criminal Revision, at the instance of the accused/revision petitioner, assails (i) the judgment dated 05.12.2023 in S.T.C. No. 695 of 2022 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur, convicting the petitioner under Sections 279 and 338 IPC, and (ii) the judgment dated 24.04.2025 in C.A.No. 138 of 2024 of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, partly allowing the appeal by modifying the conviction from Section 338 to Section 337 IPC while sustaining the conviction under Section 279 IPC. The petitioner seeks acquittal.

Prosecution Case:

2. A road-traffic accident involving a Tata Ace water delivery vehicle bearing Reg. No. TN-49-AA-8964 allegedly reversed on a public street and hit PW-5 Mariammal, causing injuries and the same is alleged to have happened on 29.01.2019, around 08:00 a.m., on Kaliamman Koil Street, near Lucky Match/Lucky Theepati Office, Sattur. Following which, on the complaint lodged by the son of the victim, one Kumar, a F.I.R. in Crime No.24 /2019 was registered as against the petitioner herein by the Sathur Taluk Police Station for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC; which was later altered to Sections 279 and 338 IPC based on medical papers. After investigation, charge sheet was filed under Sections 279 and 338 IPC on 23.02.2021.

3. Based on the complaint (Ex.P1) lodged by PW1 Kumar, a FIR (Ex.P2) in Crime No. 24/2019 was registered. The observation Mahazar (Ex.P3) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P4) were prepared by the Investigating Officer (PW8). The vehicle inspection was conducted, MVI Report (Ex.P5). Accident Register (Ex.P6) issued by the Star Hospital and Wound Certificate (Ex.P7) issued by Meenakshi Mission are the medical records. The offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC was altered to Sections 279 and 338 IPC based on “grievous” classification in papers. The final report was filed on 22.03.2019.

4. Eight witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW8, among which PW1 Thiru.Kumar is the de-facto complainant/son of the victim, one Thiru.Manikanda Prabhu who is a relative to PW1 was examined as informed witness, PW3 & PW4 one Thiru.Karuthapandi and Thiru.Kaliraj were projected as eye-witnesses, injured victim was examined as PW5 , PW6 & PW7 are the relatives of the victim later turned hostile, and the Investigation Officer was examined as PW8, through whom eight documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. No material objects were marked

5. The main contention of the prosecution is that the accused, while reversing the Tata Ace on a public way, acted rashly/negligently, hit PW5, and caused injuries corroborated by ocular evidence and medical papers.

Gist of the Trial Court Judgment in S.T.C. No. 695 of 2022:

6. The learned Trial Court relying upon the evidence of PW1 (son/complainant), PW3 and PW4 (stated to be eye-witnesses), FIR (Ex.P2), complaint (Ex.P1), mahazar (Ex.P3), rough sketch (Ex.P4), MVI report (Ex.P5), Accident Registers/Wound Certificates (Exs.P6 & P7), held that on 29.01.2019 at about 08.00 a.m., near Lucky Match Office on Kaliamman Koil Street, the petitioner, while reversing a Tata Ace (Reg. No. TN-49-AA-8964) in a rash and negligent manner, hit PW5 Mariammal and the right rear wheel passed over her, causing injuries. On such finding, the learned Trial Court proceeded to convict the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC and sentencing him to a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) each, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment.

Gist of the Judgment in Criminal Appeal in Crl.A. No. 138 of 2024:

7. The learned Appellate Court held that “grievous hurt” was not proved as the medical officer(s) were not ex