The appellate court found that the conviction under S.304(A) IPC was justified based on evidence of negligent driving, dismissing the petitioner’s appeal.

1. This Criminal Revision Case has been filed against the judgment dated 12.09.2018 in Crl. A. No.312 of 2018 on the file of the learned XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai and concurrent judgment dated 17.04.2018 in C.C.No.3243 of 2017 on the file of the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.

2. According to the petitioner, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.83 / N1/2017 for the offence punishable under S.304(A) IPC and 184 of Motor Vehicles Act against him. On completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed a charge sheet before the learned III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and the same was taken on file in C.C.No.3243 of 2017. After trial, the learned Magistrate convicted the accused for the offence under S.304(A) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month; and also for the offence under S.184 of Motor Vehicles Act to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks. Aggrieved over the said conviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal in Crl.A.No.312 of 2018 on the file of the learned XV Additional Sessions Court, Chennai. After hearing the arguments, the Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said judgment, the petitioner is before this Court.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2017 at about 21.00 hours, the petitioner was riding the two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 04 AR 0236 from North to South opposite to Cherion Nagar, 1st Street at the Junction of Suriyanarayanan Road in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, hit the pedestrian one Muniyan, who was going to cross the road from West to East direction. Due to the said impact, the deceased Muniyan sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted in the Government Stanley Hospital for treatment and later, he died on 29.08.2018. Therefore, the case was registered against the petitioner for the offence under S.304(A) IPC and S.184 of Motor Vehicles Act. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found that the accused guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no eye witness to the said occurrence. None of the prosecution witnesses have corroborated with each other. Further, the prosecution did not prove the case beyond all reasonable doubts against the petitioner. The place where the accident took place is in the highways, moreover, there is no light in that stretch of road and the said fact was admitted by P.W.1, who is the informant. Further, the deceased was on the pretext of crossing the road along with P.W.1, the said place is neither the pedestrian crossing area nor zebra crossing area and the said fact was admitted by the investigating officer, who was examined as P.W.12. The learned counsel further submitted that the accident had occurred in the highways and there exists a divider and the same was categorically admitted by P.W.12. However, the deceased had not noticed the divider and crossed the road in a negligent manner and the said fact was also admitted by P.W.1. P.W.1 noticed that when the vehicles are moving on the road, he himself and the deceased were standing on the divider, all of a sudden the deceased crossed the road in a careless and negligent manner and the same caused loss of life to the deceased and also caused multiple injuries to the petitioner / appellant. P.W.3, who is the Auto Driver has clearly stated that it was not possible to see the accident directly, si