High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
V. Malaimegu ... Rev v. State rep. by - Criminal Revision Case.No.783 of 2004  RD-TN 1769 (5 June 2007)
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 05/06/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN
Criminal Revision Case.No.783 of 2004
M.P.(MD) No.2 of 2007
V. Malaimegu ... Revision Petitioner Vs
State rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Paramakudi Taluk Police Station
Paramakudi, Ramnad District,
Cr.No.141 of 2000 ... Respondent
This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment passed by Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court at Ramanathapuram in C.A.No.9 of 2002 dated 29.08.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed to the Revision petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Paramakudi in C.C.No.170 of 2000 dated 25.01.2002.
For Revision Petitioner : Mr.S.Pon Senthi Kumaran For Respondent : Mr.Siva Ayyappan Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) :ORDER
This Revision is directed against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court at Ramanathapuram in C.A.No.9 of 2002 dated 29.08.2003 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed to the Revision petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate at Paramakudi in C.C.No.170 of 2000 dated 25.01.2002.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
3. P.W.1 Machendran is the resident of Paramakudi. His father is Sathan, since the deceased. On 17.08.2000, P.W.2 was taking tea near the Pillaiyarkovil street in the Saraswathi Nagar Bus Stop. P.W.3 was also standing near the said Bus stop. At that time, a bus bearing Registration No.TN.67 N 0032 driven by the accused came in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the father of the P.W.1, the deceased Sathan. P.W.6 was the conductor of the bus and P.W.7 was the Senior Superintendent of Tamil Nadu Transport Corporation, Paramakudi Branch Depot. A complaint was given to P.W.13, the Sub Inspector, who received the complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.141 of 2000 under Section 304(A) I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.11, the printed F.I.R, and placed the case before P.W.14, the Inspector of Police, Paramakudi Police Station. P.W.14 took up the investigation of this case and proceeded to the scene of occurrence at 21.30 hours and prepared Ex.P.3-the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.12-the Rough Sketch in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5. Further, he conducted inquest over the dead body and the body was sent for Post-mortem through P.W.12, Constable Govindaraj to the Government Hospital, Paramakudi. P.W.8, the doctor attached to the said hospital conducted Post-mortem and has given Ex.P.7, the Post-mortem Certificate, wherein he has opined that "the deceased would appear to have died with shock and haemorrhage due to injuries to vital organs and death could have occurred 12 to 18 hours prior to Post-mortem examination". Thereafter, P.W.14, recovered blood stained earth in the presence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and recorded the statements of Shanmugam, Murugavalli, Pandi, Velu, Chandrasekaran, Boothan, Karungaraj and Sadhanandham and inspected the vehicle on 18.08.2000 at 8.30 a.m. before the Paramakudi Taluk Office and prepared Observation Mahazer, Ex.P.8. Then he arrested the accused at 14.30 hours. He sent the vehicle to Motor Vehicle Inspector, P.W.10, to examine the vehicle and received a report, Ex.P.9. He also recorded the statements of the Doctor and Motor Vehicle Inspector. After completion of investigation, he filed a Charge sheet against the accused under Section 304(A) I.P.C.
4. Before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 14 were examined, Ex.P.1 to 12 were marked and M.O.1 is also marked. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined.
5. On consideration of all the evidence available on record, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Paramakudi found the accused guilty for an offence punishable under Section 304(A) I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo four months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned trial Judge, an appeal was preferred before the Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram in C.A.No.9 of 2002, where the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. Not satisfying with the judgment of the Appellate Court, this Revision has been filed by the Revision Petitioner.
6. The point for determination is:- "Whether the Revision is maintainable?" Point:-
The Supreme Court defined the power of the Revisional Court. The Revisional Court can interfere only when there is miscarriage of justice or when the trial Court has overlooked the material evidence on record. (ii) On the fateful day, i.e., 17.08.2000 at 5.20 p.m., P.W.1 was standing near the Pillaiyarkovil street in Saraswathi Nagar Bus stop. His father, the deceased Sathan, P.W.2 and 3 were also standing there. At that time, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 67 N 0032 was driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and ran over the victim. Then the victim was taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. His body was sent to Post Mortem and Post mortem was conducted by Doctor Ramadoss, P.W.8.
(iii) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the identity of the accused was not proved. Further the P.W.7, Depot Manager, did not speak about the driver. So, the identity of the driver was not proved. No doubt, P.W.2 was the depot manager of Paramakudi. But the vehicle belongs to Ramanathapuram Branch. Instead of examining the Manager from Ramanathapuram depot, the prosecution examined the Manager of Paramakudi Branch. Naturally, he is not competent to speak about the vehicle, the vehicle was driven by the accused and this was spoken by P.W.6, the conductor of the same bus. His evidence would categorically state that the vehicle was driven by the accused. The vehicle did not stop at the scene of occurrence. It left the scene of occurrence. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.6, that the vehicle was driven by the accused. There is no reason to reject his version. On the date of occurrence the vehicle was driven by the accused and the vehicle was examined by P.W.7, the Motor Vehicle Inspector. His evidence would show that the accident did not occur due the the mechanical defect. So the identity of the accused is established.
(iv) Now the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the vehicle was not driven in a rash and negligent manner. There is no evidence to that effect. The evidence of P.W.1 would show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. But nothing is elicited from him to reject his evidence. The evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would also show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Further, the conduct of the accused can be inferred from his act of not stopping the bus and not informing the matter to the Police. All this would go to show that he is guilty of the offence. Since he has committed the offence, he is not prepared to stop the vehicle and left the scene of occurrence. I find no reason to reject the evidence of P.W 1 t0 3. Their evidence is natural and quite acceptable. Hence, I find the vehicle was driven given by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and that he has committed the offence.
(v) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ex.P.11, the First Information Report, was sent after four days of the occurrence. No doubt, the First Information Report was lodged promptly registered on the same day. But, it was sent to the Court four days later. It is the mistake on the part of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer has not chosen to examine the Ramanathapuram depot Manager, instead of, he had chosen to examine the Paramakudi depot Manager. This would go to show that the Investigating Officer had extended helping hand to the accused. It is settled law that any commission or omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot throw away the case of prosecution when there are reliable on record. Hence I find that omission on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot throw away the prosecution case. Hence I find the prosecution prove the case satisfactorily.
6. The learned Trial Judge has given a cogent and acceptable reasons for convicting the accused under Section 304(A)I.P.C and awarded the sentence as stated supra. I find no reason to differ with the findings of the Trial Court. Hence, the Judgment of the Trial Court regarding conviction is sustained. So far as the sentence is concerned, the accused was sentenced to undergo four months Simple Imprisonment. He is 52 years old man. If he is P. MURGESEN,J.
committed in prison for a long time, it will affect his future and family also. He is repenting for the sin committed by him. To meet the ends of justice, taking into consideration of the accused family and the age of the accused it would be just and proper to award one month Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304 (A) IPC. The sentence already undergone by him shall be given set off. The learned counsel submitted that the accused has already undergone one month Simple Imprisonment.
7. With the above modification, the criminal Revision is disposed of. If the accused is on bail, the bail bond, if any, executed by him, shall stand terminated.
1. The Judicial Magistrare,
2. The Additional Sessions cum Fast Track Court
3. The Inspector of Police,
Paramakudi Police Station
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Crl.R.C.No.783 of 2004
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.