High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Venkatesan v. State - Crl.RC.110 of 2005  RD-TN 2418 (20 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 20-07-2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
Crl.R.C.No.110 of 2005
Venkatesan ... Petitioner -vs-
State rep. by
Inspector of Police
R-4, Pondy Bazaar Police Station,
T.Nagar, Chennai 17. ... Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, to set aside the conviction and sentence, confirmed in C.A.No.427 of 2004, dated 27.01.2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Court / Fast Track Court II, Chennai, passed in C.C.No.10140 of 2001, dated 14.10.2004 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai. For petitioner : Ms.S.Shanthi
For respondent : Mr.R.Muniyappa Raj Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment, dated 27.01.2005, made in C.A.No.427 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge / FTC II, Chennai, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, dated 14.10.2004 in C.C.No.10140 of 2001 has been confirmed.
2. Ms.S.Shanthi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that though there is a concurrent finding, the guilt against the revision petitioner has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to her, the evidence is not sufficient to hold that the driver of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TNE 7484 was driven on 27.04.2001, at 11.45 a.m, in a rash and negligent manner and caused motor accident, whereby the deceased sustained multiple injuries.
3. Per contra, Mr.R.Muniyappa Raj, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side) drew the attention of this Court to the evidence of the eye witnesses and also corresponding documents marked on the side of the prosecution and contended that the prosecution has established the guilt against the revision petitioner / accused beyond reasonable doubt.
4. It is seen from the evidence that P.W.1 Kishore Kumar and P.W.2 Suresh are the occurrence witnesses. They have categorically stated in the evidence that while the deceased was proceeding in the motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-10-4748, at Egmore Gengu Reddy Sub-way, the accident took place. As per the rough sketch, Ex.P.9, the lorry bearing No.TNE 7484 was driven on the right hand side and it caused the accident at a place, nearby 4.5 meter from the western side of the road. The evidence of the eye witnesses and the sketch prepared by police would clearly show that the lorry was driven in a zig-zag manner, while causing the accident, whereby the deceased had sustained fatal injuries.
5. Based on the complaint given by P.W.2, the case was registered by the respondent police, under Section 337 IPC (2 counts) and Section 184 of MV Act. As per the evidence of P.W.1, he was the pillion rider, while the motor cycle was driven by the deceased Nilavazhagan. P.W.2 is an independent witness and he has deposed evidence about the occurrence. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the evidence of the eye witnesses would clearly establish that the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, by its driver, the revision petitioner herein. P.W.3 is the doctor, who gave treatment to the injured on 27.04.2001, after the motor accident. P.W.4 is the doctor, who gave treatment to Kishore Kumar, P.W.1, who was also injured in the accident. P.W.6 is the Motor Inspector, who inspected the lorry, which caused the accident. According to him, the accident was not occurred due to any mechanical failure of the lorry. P.W.7 is the owner of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TNE 7484, he has admitted that the lorry belongs to him and that the revision petitioner drove the vehicle on 27.04.2001 at the time of the motor accident. After, he received the intimation about the motor accident, submitted the documents relating to the vehicle to the police. The evidence of P.W.8, the doctor, who conducted postmortem would clearly show that the deceased Nilavazhagan had sustained various fractures and head injury and due to which, breathed his last. After the occurrence, the Inspector, attached to the respondent police station, inspected the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch. The Accident Register copy issued by P.W.3 has been marked as Ex.P.2. The Accident Register copy issued by P.W.4 has been marked as Ex.P.3 and the wound certificate was marked as Ex.P.4. It is seen from the FIR that there was no delay in registering the case and sending the same to the Judicial Magistrate. It is seen that apart from the eye witnesses, the evidence of medical witnesses would also support the prosecution case to prove the guilt against the revision petitioner.
6. As contended by the learned Government Advocate, in a criminal revision, unless there is manifest error of law or perverse finding, leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot interfere with the same. Here in this case, the trial court has held that the charges leveled against the revision petitioner / accused has been proved beyond reasonable doubt, accordingly, convicted the revision petitioner / accused under Section 304 (A) and sentenced to undergo S.I for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence and also under Section 338 IPC, imposed a fine of Rs.1,000.- with default sentence.
7. The trial court has held that the motor accident had taken place, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, bearing Registration No.TNE 7484 by the revision petitioner on the date of occurrence. At the time of accident, P.W.1 had been pillion rider in the motor cycle, he was also thrown out of the vehicle. Similarly, P.W.2 was a witness for the occurrence. The evidence adduced by both the witnesses had been relied on by the prosecution in convicting the revision petitioner. I am of the considered view that there is no suspicious circumstance to disbelieve the evidence of the eye witnesses. The sketch, Ex.P.9 prepared by the police, on the date of occurrence would also show that the lorry was driven in a negligent manner on his right hand side of the road and caused the accident. Therefore, I am of the view that there is no manifest error of law or perverse finding, leading to miscarriage of justice, so as to interfere with the concurrent finding of the courts below.
8. Ms.S.Shanthi, learned counsel appointed through Legal Aid would contend that instead of one year RI, fine amount may be imposed on the revision petitioner. In the instant case, it has been proved that only due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry, the motor accident had occurred, on account of the same, Nilavazhagan, aged about 25 years had sustained multiple injuries, including head injury and breathed his last in the hospital and therefore, I am of the view that imposing fine alone under Section 304 (A) would not meet the ends of justice. However, on the facts and circumstances, I find it reasonable to reduce the sentence to six months S.I, instead of one year S.I, apart from the fine amount imposed by the court below.
9. In the result, the conviction made on the revision petitioner, under Sections 304 (A) and 338 IPC by the court below is confirmed and the sentence under Section 304 (A) is modified and thereby one year S.I. is reduced to six months S.I, and he is also directed to pay the fine amount with default sentence under Sections 304 (A) and 338 IPC, as held by the court below. 10. With the above modification, this Criminal Revision is disposed of. 11. As the revision petitioner / accused is on bail, the trial court is directed to secure the revision petitioner / accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence. 12. Ms.S.Shanthi, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner appointed through High Court Legal Aid Committee has sincerely conducted the case and therefore, she is entitled to get a remuneration of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) only from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid Committee. tsvn
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.