Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 37184
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.11.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.R.C.No.791 of 2018 Pachamuthu ... Petitioner Vs.
State Represented by its The Inspector of Police, Bhuvanagiri Police Station, Cuddalore District.
(Cr. No.62 of 2006) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner herein by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Porto Novo, Cuddalore District in C.C.No.106 of 2006 dated 22.01.2018 and confirmed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District in C.A.No.8 of 20187 dated
26.06.2018 and acquit the petitioner herein.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karthikeyan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision is directed as against the judgment passed in C.A.No.8 of 201 dated 26.06.2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.106 of 2006 dated 22.01.2018 on the file of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Proto Novo, Cuddaore District, thereby convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 (24 counts), 338 (2 counts), 304(A) ( 2 counts) of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 23.03.2006 at about
11.00 a.m., when the injured persons were traveling in a mini door load auto bearing Registration No. TN31M4744 from Cuddalore to Bhuvanagiri national highway 45-A road, near Adhivaraga Nallur Village, the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligence manner and capsized the vehicle, due to which two persons died and all the passengers who traveled in the vehicle suffered grievous and simple injuries. Hence the complaint.
3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.62 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 (24 counts), 338 (2 counts), 304(A) ( 2 counts) of IPC. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in C.C.No.106 of 2006. On the side of the prosecution they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.34 and marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.37. On the side of the accused one one was examined and no documents were marked.
4. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the petitioner's guilty for the offence under Sections 279, 337 (24 counts), 338 (2 counts), 304(A) ( 2 counts) of IPC and sentenced him as follows :-
| Sl.No. | Convection | Sentence |
| 1. | Section 279 of IPC | To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of one month. |
| 2. | Section 337 (24 counts) of IPC | To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each count total fine of Rs.24,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 24 months. |
| 3. | Section 338 (2 counts) of IPC | To pay a fine of Rs.1,500/- for each count total fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 7 months. |
| 4. | Section 304(A) To undergo one year (6 months for each count) |
| Sl.No. | Convection | Sentence |
| (2 counts) of IPC | simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for each count total fine of Rs.6,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for the period of 6 months. |
The trial Court further ordered that the petitioner shall undergo imprisonment consecutively. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. Hence the present revision.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that admittedly on the date of accident there was a rain and due to rain, the vehicle skit by itself and capsized, due to which two persons died and other passengers sustained grievous and simple injuries. None of the witnesses had spoken that the vehicle was driven by its driver in a rash and negligence manner. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligence manner and caused the accident.
5.1. He further submitted that all the witnesses deposed contradictory and failed to support the case of the prosecution. No individual witness was examined by the prosecution in order to bring the charges to home. The road was slippery due to rain and as such the petitioner was driving the vehicle slowly. When the other vehicle wanted to overtake, the vehicle got slipped in the end of the road, which would show that there was no rash and negligence driving on the part of the petitioner.
5.2. He also submitted that the Courts below convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to undergo six months im
