Vallikan vs State

Rengasamy, J.—This revision is against the conviction and sentence by the learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras in C.C.No.4470

of 1989, dated 13.3.1992 sentencing the revision petitioner herein to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months for the offence under

Ss.304(A) and 279 of Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution case is that on 27.2.1989 at about 8.40 p.m. the revision petitioner herein drove the P.T.C. bus bearing No. TCP 5060 along

Basin Bridge route rashly and negligently and hit against a person by name Manohar and causing fatal injuries. Two witnesses have been examined

to speak about the occurrence. P.Ws.1 and 2 claiming to be the eye witnesses to the occurrence have stated that they saw the bus bearing No.

TCP 5060 hit against a boy who was standing on the left hand side of the road as the bus was driven rashly. P.W. 2 has stated that the bus which

was proceeding in the Basin Bridge Road near Moolakkothalam Bus Stand almost came to halt in the bus stand, but without stopping, the bus the

driver drove the vehicle fastly and during that time hit against the boy who was standing on the road. The learned XVI Metropolitan Magistrate

accepting the evidence of those two witnesses for the charge alleged against the revision petitioner has convicted him in the manner stated above.

But the Learned Counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend mat the identity of the accused has not been established in the

evidence of the prosecution witnesses and therefore, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under S. 304(A) of Indian Penal Code. I

went through the evidence and P.W. 1 has admitted that he did not know the driver of the bus. P.W. 2 has not stated anything about this accused.

Therefore, none of these witnesses have identified this accused/revision petitioner as the person who drove the vehicle. The investigating officer

also has- not stated as to how he was able to trace this accused as the driver of the bus which was involved in the accident. But simply he has

stated that he arrested this accused. Without ascertaining the driver of the bus which was involved in the accident the mere arrest of this accused is

not sufficient to connect the accused with the crime. Even though P.W. I in the Chief Examination itself has admitted that he did not know the

driver, the Assistant Public Prosecutor who conducted the case did not even attempt to think that the accused must be connected with the crime

for securing the conviction and in this case the learned Metropolitan Magistrate has so carelessly convicted the accused even without ascertaining

from the prosecution evidence as to the identity of the driver of the bus. The result is that there is no evidence to connect this accused/revision

petitioner with the crime. Similarly the Investigating Officer also has done investigation in a perfunctory manner without ascertaining from the

Pallavan Transport Corporation, Madras Office, as to the person who drove the bus on that day. He has simply filed a charge-sheet after the

arrest of the accused under the presumption that this revision petitioner was the driver of the vehicle. There should have been an investigation in the

office of the Transport Corporation as to who drove the Bus T.C.P.5060 on the accident date. In spite of that infirmity the learned XVI

Metropolitan Magistrate also without applying her mind has found that this accused has committed the offence under S.304(A) of Indian Penal

Code. When the charge is that this accused drove the vehicle on the date of the occurrence, there is no specific question under S.313 of Criminal

Procedure Code for driving this vehicle by the revision petitioner. Probably as there is no evidence from any of these witnesses that question has

not been framed under S.313 of Criminal Procedure Code. Anyhow now I find no iota of evidence to accept the prosecution case that this

revision petitioner drove the bus bearing No. T.C.P.5060 at that time of the accident. When such evidence is lacking in this case the conviction

cannot be secured against the revision petitioner. Therefore, the revision has to be allowed.

In the result, setting aside the conviction and sentence of the Court below, the revision petitioner is acquitted of the charge. The revision petition

is allowed.