Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 17.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018

Kannan

... Revision Petitioner/

Appellant/Accused

Vs.

The Inspector of Police,

Panagudi Police Station,

Tirunelveli District.

(Crime No.268 of 2001).

... Respondent/Respondent/

Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 and 401 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the Judgment passed in

C.A.No.118 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional Sessions

Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 02.02.2018, confirming the order passed

in C.C.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate,

Valliyoor, dated 05.11.2015.

For Petitioner

: Mr.G.Anto Prince

For Respondent

: Mr.M.Vaikkam Karunanithi

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

1/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018

ORDER

This Revision has been filed to set aside the Judgment

passed in C.A.No.118 of 2015 on the file of the learned III

Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 02.02.2018, confirming

the order passed in C.C.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the learned

Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor, dated 05.11.2015.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 11.11.2001 at

about 11.30 am., on Nagercoil-Tirunelveli National Highways road

near Kavalkinaru Vilakku S.A.Raja Dental Hospital, the petitioner

drove his Tempo bearing Registration No.TN-74-C-1132 after

boarding 46 passengers in the goods carriage vehicle and turned

upside down, due to rash and negligent driving. Therefore, four

persons died, 5 persons sustained grievous injuries and 19 persons

sustained simple injuries. On the complaint, the respondent

registered the F.I.R in Crime No.268 of 2001 for the offences under

Sections 279, 337 (19 counts), 338 (5 counts) and 304(A)(4

counts) against the petitioner herein. After completion of the

investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has

been taken cognizance in C.C.No.13 of 2004 on the file of the

learned Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor.

2/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018

3.On the side of the prosecution, they had examined

P.W.1 to P.W.34 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.57 and on the side of the

accused, no one was examined and no exhibits were marked.

4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial

Court found the accused guilty for the offences under Sections 279,

337 (19 counts), 338 (5 counts) and 304(A) (4 counts) of I.P.C and

he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo

one week Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of

I.P.C; he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each (Rs.200 X 19

= Rs.3,800/-), in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment

for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C (19 counts), he was

sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.400/- each (Rs.400 X 5 = Rs.2,000/-,

in default to undergo one week Simple Imprisonment for the offence

under Section 338 of I.P.C (5 counts) and he was sentenced to

undergo one year Simple Imprisonment each, in default to pay a

fine of Rs.1,000/- each (Rs.1,000 X 4 = Rs.4,000/-) for the offence

under Section 304(A)(4) of I.P.C (4 counts). The sentences shall go

concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an

appeal in C.A.No.118 of 2015 on the file of the learned III Additional

3/11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C(MD)No.263 of 2018

Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and the Appellate Court also confirmed

the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and

dismissed the appeal. Hence, the present revision.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

submit that no witness had spoken that the petitioner drove the

Tempo in a rash and negligent manner. Though some of the

witnesses had deposed that the petitioner drove the tempo in a

speedy manner, it would not amo