Rash and negligent driving on wrong side proved by eyewitnesses, sketch, and vehicle damage; conviction upheld, sentence modified with compensation.

O R D E R

This Criminal Revision Case has been filed as against the Judgment dated

30.04.2021 passed in Criminal Appeal No.296 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode District at Bhavani, thereby confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in C.C.No.193 of 2015 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Bhavani, Erode District, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 01.11.2015, at about 6.30 p.m., the accused drove a Maruthi Swift Dzire Car bearing Registration No.KA-05-AE-2995 from west to east on the Appakudal to Bhavani Road, near Vijaya Colony, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against a two- wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-28-P-4227, which was coming from the opposite direction, thereby caused the death of the rider of the two wheeler and committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. 3. Based on the complaint, the respondent police registered an FIR in Crime No.275 of 2015 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. After completion of the investigation, the respondent police filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in C.C.No.193 of 2015.

4. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked to disprove the charges.

5. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC and he was convicted for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.750/- in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment. He was further convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Court and the order passed by the Trial Court was confirmed. Hence, the present revision case has been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are several material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which are fatal to the case of the prosecution. Without considering the same, both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have erroneously convicted the petitioner. P.W.4, in his cross examination, deposed that the offending vehicle which came from northern side to southern side and dashed against the deceased’s vehicle. It is completely contrary to the case of the prosecution that, while the deceased was riding his vehicle from east to west, the offending vehicle came from west to east and dashed against the deceased. Such material contradiction is not considered by both the Courts below. He further submitted that the petitioner is a taxi driver and at the time of accident, it was raining. Therefore, the accident had occurred not only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner also due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. In fact, the deceased did not wear a helmet at the time of accident and he worn a helmet, the fatality could have been avoided.

7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that both the Courts below concurrently held that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the petitioner, resulting in the death of one pers