JUDGMENT

The appellant, who is the sole accused, has filed the present appeal challenging the judgment dated 28.04.2022 made in S.C.No.221 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Court, Chennai.

2. The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and sentenced as follows:

3. It is the case of the prosecution that, on 03.11.2014 at about 7.00 a.m., when PW1 was travelling in a car on Durgabai Deshmuk Flyover, he noticed a private bus proceeding from North to South at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. The bus hit the auto proceeding in front of it. On hearing a loud noise, PW1 went to the spot and found the driver of the auto, aged about 60 years, lying on the road with injuries on his head and right elbow. The injured was sent to Royapettah Hospital in an 108 Ambulance. The auto was bearing Registration No. TN-07-AZ-0799 and the private bus was bearing Registration No. TN-21-AU-4015. When PW1 enquired with the driver who had got down from the bus, he disclosed his name as Udayakumar/accused. The accused was allegedly under the influence of alcohol. There was a huge crowd at the place of occurrence. PW9/Traffic Inspector, visited the scene and received the complaint (Ex.P1), from PW1. The injured person, who had been taken to the hospital, died on the same day.

4. PW9 recorded the statements of PWs.1 and 2 under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. FIR/Ex.P8, was registered and the Observation Mahazar, (Ex.P2), and Rough Sketch, (Ex.P9) were prepared in the presence of PWs.4 and 5. PW9 conducted the inquest over the dead body, which was marked as Ex.P11, and intimated PW3, the wife of the deceased, for identification. PW7, the Doctor, examined the accused and issued the medical certificate, marked as Ex.P6. The Doctor/PW8 who conducted the post-mortem issued the Post-Mortem Certificate/Ex.P7. PW6/the Motor Vehicle Inspector, conducted inspection, examined the vehicles and issued the Motor Vehicle Inspection (MVI) Report in respect of the bus, marked as Ex.P4, and the Motor Vehicle Inspection (MVI)Report in respect of the auto, marked as Ex.P5.

5. PW9 completed the investigation and filed the final report before the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in P.R.C.No.4 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(ii) of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned Magistrate complied with Section 207 of Cr.P.C. and, since the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Session, committed the case to the Sessions Court. On committal, the Trial Court framed the charges. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty and stood trial. In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P1 to P11. On completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating materials available against him. He denied the same as false. However, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.

6. After hearing the arguments on either side and considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court concluded that the charges under Section 304(ii) of IPC and Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act had not been proved. However, the Trial Court held that the offence under Section 304-A of IPC being the lesser offence than Section 304(ii) of IPC and charge under Section 279 of IPC had been established and accordingly convicted the appellant under Section 279 and Section 304-A of IPC and imposed the sentence as referred to above. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him, the accused has preferred the present appeal.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is serious doubt regarding the very recording of the complaint (Ex.P1), and the registration of the FIR (Ex.P8). PW1 had admitted that he had not given the complaint and had merely signed the complaint prepared by PW9. He furth