High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Jawahar v. State rep. By - Criminal Revision Case No.75 of 2006  RD-TN 1488 (17 April 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN
Criminal Revision Case No.75 of 2006
Jawahar .. Petitioner
State rep. By
The Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigation Wing - North,
Thiruchirapalli. .. Respondent
Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against the Judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirapalli in C.C.No.116 of 2005, which was modified in Crl.A.No.117 of 2005 dated 30.12.2005 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tiruchirapalli. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha
For Respondent : Mr.P.Rajendran,
Govt.Advocate, Crl.Side :ORDER
The Revision is directed against the order dated 30.12.2005 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tiruchirpalli, which arose out of the Judgment dated 28.7.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirapalli, in C.C.No.116 of 2005.
2.The gist of the case of the prosecution is as follows: a)P.W.1-Settu is a Mechanic. On 1.12.2004 at about 1.30 p.m., while he was proceeding towards the sub-pathway, he saw a two wheeler bearing Reg. No.T.N.45 Q 3211 driven by the accused/revision petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the victim.
b)P.W.2 is the co-brother of the deceased; deceased is the uncle of P.W.3; P.W.4 is the wife of the deceased; deceased is the uncle of P.W.5; P.W.6 is the neighbor of the deceased.
c)P.W.7-Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint of P.W.1-Settu on 1.12.2004 and registered the case in Crime No.321 of 2004 under section 279, 337 IPC. He prepared the F.I.R.-Ex.P3. On receipt of death intimation about the victim, he altered the F.I.R. under section 304-A IPC and sent the altered Express F.I.R.-Ex.P4 to the Court. He also placed the entire papers before the Inspector for further investigation.
d)P.W.8-Inspector of Police took up investigation in this case. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P2; sketch-Ex.P5. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 2.12.2004 from 10.00 a.m. to 12 noon in the presence of the witnesses. Ex.P6 is the inquest report. He sent the dead body of the deceased for post-morterm. e)Dr.A.Karthikeyan, attached to Government Medical College Hospital, Periyamilaguparai, Tiruchirapalli conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 2.12.2004 and found the following injuries: "INJURIES:
1.Left eye- Black eye.
2.A sutured wound, 3 cm in length, on the left parietal eminence, on removal of the sutures, the edges are irregular and bone deep. 3.A lacerated wound, 2 cm x 0.5 cm x bone deep, on the back of th left elbow. 4.Dark brown colour abrasion, 4 cm x 3 cm, on the back of the left shoulder. 5.Bruising of the frontal, parietal and left temporal regions of the scalp - Dard red.
6.Fissured fracture of left temporal and parietal bones, in a single line. 7.Sub dural haemorrhage and sub arachnoid
haemorrhage on both cerebral hemispheres.
8.Fissured fracture of floor of anterior cranial fossa communicates with external fracture."
The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to cranio cerebral wounds. Ex.P9 is the Post-Morterm Certificate. f)P.W.8-Inspector of Police in continuation of his investigation examined the witnesses and recorded their statements; he sent the vehicle for inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector; he arrested the accused on 3.12.2004; he examined the Motor Vehicles Inspector, recorded his statements and received the report - Ex.P7 in respect of the vehicle TN 45 Q 3211. He also received the wound certificate-Ex.P8 given to the deceased and the Post-Morterm Certificate Ex.P9. On 13.12.2004, he completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the Revision Petitioner/accused under Section 304-A IPC.
3.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws 1 to 8 and filed Exs P1 to P9.
4.On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirapalli, in C.C.No.116 of 2005 dated 28.7.2005, found the accused guilty under section 304-A IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
5.Aggrieved over the Judgment of the learned trial Judge, the accused/revision petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tiruchirpalli, in C.A.No.117 of 2005. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction imposed by the trial Judge, but modified the sentence to two months rigorous imprisonment.
6.Challenging the Judgment of the learned Appellate Judge, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed.
7.Point for Determination:
1.Whether the Revision is maintainable ? POINT:
8.On the fateful day of occurrence i.e. on 1.12.2004, when P.W.1 was proceeding towards the sub-pathway, he saw a two wheeler bearing Reg. No.T.N.45 Q 3211 driven by the
accused/revision petitioner in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the victim.
9.The evidence of P.W.1 would show that the accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and as per the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, the accident had not occurred due to mechanical defect.
10.At the time of argument, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused fairly conceded that the Revision Petitioner/accused is responsible for the accident and also submitted that the accused had undergone imprisonment for five days. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in BHOJAPPA HANAMANTHAPPA CHOUDANNAVAR AND AND OTHERS vs STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2004 SCC(Cri) 1783 and argued that compensation may be granted in lieu of imprisonment.
11.In the above said case, a little girl died in the unfortunate incident and the accused had no ire against the little girl either before or during the occurrence. It was an act done in a rash mood without any intention to cause even grievous hurt to the
little girl. Even so, the Supreme Court held that the accused must pay the penalty for it. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court convicted the accused under Section 304 Part II IPC and altered the sentence to a fine of Rs.25,000/- to be remitted before the trial court within six weeks from the date of Judgment, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.
12.In the case on hand, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the accused is a poor Teacher, he is an author of many social reform books, he repent for the occurrence and he is prepared the pay the compensation.
13.In the light of the above said Supreme Court decision, I am of the view that the conviction can be altered into five days imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- and the fine amount shall be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased.
With the above observation, the Criminal Revision Case is disposed of.
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Tiruchirapalli.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tiruchirapalli
3.The Inspector of Police
Traffic Investigation Wing (North)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.