A. Kumar vs The State

R. Mala, J.—This criminal revision arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 28.04.2009 in C.A. No. 297 of 2008, on

the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No. 3, Dharapuram, whereby the Petitioner was convicted for the offence

u/s 279 I.P.C., imposed a fine of Rs. 750/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and he was convicted for the offence u/s

304(A) I.P.C., sentenced to undergo six months'' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, in default, to undergo three months''

simple imprisonment.

The case of the prosecution is as follows:

(i) On the fateful day, (i.e.) 28.03.2006, at about 6.30 p.m., P.W.1 was waiting for his father-in-law Kuppusamy Gounder in Vellakovil High

Road. When the said Kuppusamy Gounder was proceeding on northern side, after finished his milk business, P.W.1 was proceeding on southern

side in Coimbatore - Trichy Main Road. When they were proceeded towards western side, at that time, a sand lorry bearing Registration No.

K.L.08-E-3355, which was driven by the accused, came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Kuppusamy Gounder and he

ran away from the place of occurrence. Due to the said accident, he sustained injuries all over the body. But Kuppusamy Gounder was died on the

way to the Government Hospital, Kangeyam.

(ii) Immediately, P.W.1 son-in-law gave a complaint before Vellakovil Police Station, which was marked as Ex.P1. P.W.10 Manichaean,

Inspector of Police, received the said complaint under Ex.P1 and registered a case in Crime No. 176/2006 under Sections 279 and 304(A) I.P.C.

and prepared a printed F.I.R. under Ex.P3.

(iii) P.W.10-Inspector of Police went to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation haphazard Ex.P2 in the presence of P.W.4 Krishna

Amy and P.W.5 Mani and he also drew the rough sketch under Ex.P4. P.W.10, after examining the witnesses, recorded their statements. On the

very next day morning, P.W.10 conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared an inquest report under Ex.P5. Then, he sent the

body of the deceased for post-mortem and Dr. Ranganayaki conducted the autopsy and gave post-mortem certificate, which was marked as

Ex.P8. He also sent the vehicle for motor vehicle inspection and obtained motor vehicle inspector''s report under Ex.P6. After completing the

investigation, P.W.10 filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) I.P.C.

The learned Judicial Magistrate, since the accused pleaded not guilty, after examining the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.10 and perused the

documentary evidence under Exs.P1 to P9, convicted the accused under Sections 279 and 304(A) I.P.C. and sentenced him as indicated above,

against which, the accused preferred an appeal in C.A. No. 297/2008. The learned Appellate Judge, after considering the arguments advanced by

both the counsel, confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the present revision has been preferred by the

revision Petitioner/accused.

Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner submitted that there is no evidence to show that the

vehicle was driven by the revision Petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner. The trial Court has not considered the vital contradiction in the

evidence of P.W.6 Karthi regarding the date and time of receipt of the complaint and lodging of F.I.R. He further submitted that if this Court has

decided to come to the conclusion that the revision Petitioner/accused is guilty, some leniency to be shown to him.

Refuting the same, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) submitted that both the Courts below have considered the eye-witnesses

P.W.1 and P.W.3 and documentary evidence under Ex.P2 observation haphazard and Ex.P4 rough sketch and came to the conclusion that the

accused is guilty for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) I.P.C. Hence there is no irregularity or illegality committed by both the Courts

below. Therefore, he prayed for the dismissal of the revision.

Considered the rival submissions made on both sides and the materials available on record.

P.W.1 is son-in-law, who is an eye-witness; P.W.2 Rukmani is wife of the deceased and she is not an eye-witness. P.W.3 Duraisamy and

P.W.7 Govindaraj areeye- witnesses; P.W.4 Krishna Amy and P.W.5 Mani are not eye-witnesses, they are attestors of observation haphazard

under Ex.P2. P.W.6 Karthi is the son of owner of the vehicle, who stated that the revision Petitioner/accused was driven the vehicle at the time of

the accident.

The case of the prosecution is that the vehicle was driven by the revision Petitioner/accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against

the deceased, who was thrown out and sustained grievous injuries. At the time of the accident, the deceased was not riding his cycle and he was

pushing his cycle with milk cane, the vehicle, which was driven by the revision Petitioner/accused came on the back side of the deceased and

dashed against him.

Admittedly, the width of the thar road is 24 feet, but the accident was occurred only at the mud road. As per Ex.P2 observation haphazard, the

accident was occurred three feet away from the northern side of the mud road, which was specifically mentioned as follows:

VERNACULAR (TAMIL) PORTION DELETED

It is clearly proved that the occurrence was taken place on mud road and the vehicle, which was driven by the revision Petitioner/accused with

rash and negligent manner, came on the back side of the deceased and dashed against him. It is seen from the record that the accident was

occurred at 6.30 p.m. only. So the revision Petitioner/accused may very well averted the accident by turning the vehicle on right side and drove the

vehicle on thar road, which has 24 feet width. The evidence of P. Ws.1,3 and 7, Ex.P2 observation haphazard and Ex.P4 rough sketch have

clearly proved that the revision Petitioner/accused has driven the vehicle on extreme left side of the thar road that too on mud road in a rash and

negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Kuppusamy Gounder, who sustained grievous injuries and died on the way to hospital and

succumbed to death. So the prosecution has clearly proved that the revision Petitioner/accused is guilty for the offence under Sections 279 and

304(A) I.P.C. Hence I do not find any merits in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner/accused.

Furthermore, the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner/accused submitted that since the revision Petitioner is aged about 26 years, he

prayed for some leniency in the sentence imposed to him. On considering the fine amounts of Rs. 750/- and Rs. 4,000/-, the revision Petitioner has

already paid the said amounts. On considering the manner of the accident, I am of the view that the sentence imposed by both the Courts below

are liable to be confirmed and hence they are hereby confirmed.

In fine, The Criminal Revision is dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below are hereby confirmed. The bail

bond executed by him, if any, shall stand canceled. Since the accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the revision

Petitioner/accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.