Evidence from eyewitnesses and motor vehicle inspection proving negligent driving while operating a goods vehicle for passenger transport justifies a criminal conviction, though sentencing can be mitigated based on humanitarian circumstances.

ORDER

This criminal revision case has been filed against the judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed in CA.No.5 of 2021 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur thereby confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 07.01.2021 passed in CC.No.41 of 2016 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Needamangalam for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 (4 counts) and 304(A) of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 06.06.2016 at about

09.45 a.m., the defacto complainant and others, who belonged to the same place, travelled in a load van Tata Ace bearing registration No.TN 49 AE 5782 to attend a marriage at Ammapettai, which was driven by the petitioner. While being so, at about 10.00 a.m., when the vehicle was turning in a curve near Ammapettai Main Road, Avalivanallur Vettu Canal Bridge, the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and the vehicle was capsized, due to which one passenger died on the spot. Four other passengers sustained simple injuries. On the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in crime No.48 of 2016 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337(4 counts) and 304(A) of IPC.

After completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the trial court. In order to prove the charges before the trial court, the prosecution had examined PW1 to PW16 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked to disprove the charges. On perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 279, 337(4 counts) and 304(A) of IPC. The petitioner was sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337(4 counts) of IPC. He was sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred appeal and the same was dismissed by confirming the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. Aggrieved by the order of the appellate court, this criminal revision case has been filed by the accused.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one person suddenly crossed the road and as such, in order to avoid hitting that person, the petitioner applied sudden brake and the vehicle capsized, due to which one person died and four persons sustained simple injuries.

Therefore, the accident took place not on the negligent and rash driving of the petitioner. The learned counsel would further submit that the petitioner is a daily wage coolie and he is the only bread winner of his family. He further submitted that the petitioner already languished in prison for 24 days.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(crl.side)

appearing for the respondent submitted that there are eye witnesses and also injured witnesses who categorically deposed that only because of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident occurred, due to which one person died and four persons injured. There was a curve in the road and without reducing the speed, the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and capsized the vehicle. In fact, the petitioner was not supposed to carry passengers in the goods vehicle and it is violation of the Motor Vehicles Act. Even then, the petitioner loaded the persons in that goods vehicle and went to a marriage function. Therefore, the trial court as well as the appellate court rightly convicted the petitioner and it does not warrant any interference by this Court.

5. Heard the learned counsel appe