This criminal revision has been filed against the conviction. The sole accused in C.C.No.264 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore is petitioner herein. The petitioner stood charges for the offence under Sections 279, and 304(A) (Two counts) IPC. After trial, the trial Court convicted the accused under Section 279 IPC and sentencing him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and sentencing him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each counts and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 304(A) (two counts) IPC. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Judge, (Fast track Court No.I,), Coimbatore. The appellate Court, by its judgment dated 24.08.2011, dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred this present criminal revision case.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
On 03.07.2006 at about 6.40 a.m., both the deceased, namely, Sivagurunathan and Shanmugasundaram were riding in a motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN-38-AD-0517, while they were crossing the Coimbatore - Pollachi Road Junction signal,(four road junction) near Karpakam College, a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN-60-7449, driven by the petitioner came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and caused their death. P.Ws.3,7 and 8, who are working as Superintendent, Supervisor and Driver respectively in L & T Company maintaining high way road, who were on patrol, saw the accident. Immediately, P.W.3 has given a complaint[Ex.P1] to the respondent police. P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station, on receipt of the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.142 of 2006, for the offence under Sections 279 and 304-A (Two counts) IPC, prepared First Information Report [Ex.P8] and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court and copies of the same to the higher officials. P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station, on receipt of the first information report, he commenced the investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar [Ex.P1] and Rough Sketch [Ex.P9]. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead bodies in the presence of witnesses and sent the dead bodies to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore for conducting postmortem autopsy. P.Ws.14 and 15, the Doctors, who are working in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted postmortem autopshy on the dead bodies of the deceased and they issued Post-mortem Certificate. Thereafter, P.W.18, examined the Doctors, who conducted postmortem autopsy and other witnesses and recorded their statements, after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Court.
3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed above and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked.
4. Out of the said witnesses examined, P.W.1 is known to the deceased.
According to him, on receipt of the information through phone, he went the accident spot and saw the deceased. P.W.2 is known to the deceased, According to him, on receipt of the information through phone, he went the accident spot and saw the deceased. P.W.3 is working as Superintendent in L & T Company, maintaining the high way. According to P.W.3, on the date of occurrence, he along with P.Ws.7 and 8 were on patrol duty at the high way and saw the deceased were riding a motor cycle from Coimbatore to Pollachi, near Pollachi Road Junction signal, (four road junction), at that time, a lorry driven by the petitioner came from east to west direction and dashed against the motor cycle and both the deceased fell down and they sent them to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. Then, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police station. P.W.4 is the brother of deceased Sivagurunathan. According to him, on receipt of the information through phone, he went the accident spot and saw the deceased. P.W.5 and 6 are known to the deceased, According to them, on receipt of the information through phone, they went the occurrence place and saw the deceased. P.W.7 is working as Supervisor in L & T Company. According to him, on the date of occurrence, he along with P.Ws.3 and 8 were on patrol duty, when the deceased crossing the signal in a motor cycle, a lorry driven by the petitioner, came in a high speed and dashed against the deceased and they suffered serious injuries. P.W.8 is working as Driver in L & T company. According to him, on the date of occurrence, he along with P.Ws.3 and 7 were on patrol duty, when the deceased crossing the signal in a motor cycle, at that time, a lorry came in a high speed and dashed against the deceased and they suffered serious injuries. P.Ws.9,10,11 and 12 are the brothers of deceased Shanmugasundaram. According to them, on receipt of the information, they went the accident spot and saw the deceased. P.W.13 is witness to the Observation Mahazar. P.W.14, the Doctor, working in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of deceased Sivagurunathan and issued post-mortem certificate. P.W.15, the Doctor, working in the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body of deceased Shanmugasundaram and issued post-mortem certificate. P.W.16 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who examined the lorry and motor cycle, has given a report stating that there is no mechanical failure in the lorry driven by the petitioner. P.W.17, the Sub Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station. According to him, on receipt of the complaint, he registered a case in Crime No.142 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A(two counts) IPC. P.W.18, the Inspector of Police, working in the respondent police station. According to him, on receipt of the first information report, he commenced investigation, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body in the presence of panchayatars and sent the dead body to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore for conducting postmortem autopsy. Thereafter, P.W.18, examined the Doctors, who conducted postmortem autopsy and other witnesses and recorded their statements and after completion of investigation, he laid charge sheet before the Jurisdictional Court.
5. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. His defence was a total denial. The accused did not examine any witness and no document was marked on his side.
6. After elaborate trial, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences as stated in first paragraph of this judgment. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has filed a Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I,) Coimbatore. The appellate Court, by its judgment dated 24.08.2011, dismissed the appeal, by confirming the judgment passed by the Trial Court. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred this present criminal revision case.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that P.Ws.3, 7 and 8 the so-called eye witnesses and not witness to the occurrence and they are chance witnesses, and there is no other evidence available to corroborate their evidence. Apart from that there is no evidence to prove the driver of the lorry driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submit that the driving license of the deceased was not produced by the prosecution. In the above circumstances, he prays for allowing the criminal revision case.
8. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Crl Side) appearing for the respondent would contend that P.Ws.3,7 and 8 are eye witnesses to the occurrence. They are also independent witnesses and all of them working in L & Company and who are maintained the high way road and they are not interested witness. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of eye witnesses. She further submitted that the eye witnesses categorically stated that at the time of accident, the driver of the lorry came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and caused death of the deceased. Hence, she prays for dismissal of the revision case.
9. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record.
10. In this case, there are three eye witnesses to the occurrence.
P.Ws.3, 7 and 8 are working as Superintendent, Supervisor and Driver respectively in L & T Company and they are maintaining the high way. It is their consistent evidence that they are inspecting the road, at that time they saw the accident, where both the deceased were crossing the signal in a two wheeler at four road junction, a lorry came in a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle and caused the death of the deceased. Immediately, P.W.3 sent both the deceased to the Government Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore in a ambulance and thereafter he lodged a complaint to the respondent police. All the three eye witnesses are independent witnesses and they are categorically stated that in the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Hence, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of eye witnesses. On perusal of the records, it is clear that the accident took place in four road junction in Coimbatore City in the morning hours and while the deceased were crossing the signal, the lorry came in a high speed and dashed against the motor cycle and caused death of the deceased. The Motor Vehicle Inspector also examined the lorry and motor cycle and submitted his report stating that there is no mechanical failure of the lorry. Considering the evidence and materials available on record, both the Courts below concurrently decided that the petitioner driven a lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and caused death of the deceased, and I find no illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Courts below and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the Courts below.
11. In the result, this Criminal Revision is dismissed. The conviction and sentence dated 24.08.2011 passed in C.A.No.94 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Judge,(Fast Track Court No.I), Coimbatore confirming the judgment dated 11.04.2011 passed in C.C.No.264 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore, stands confirmed. If the petitioner/accused is not in custody, the trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to secure him and commit him to prison so as to serve the sentence imposed on him.
04.01.2017 Index:yes/no Internet:yes/no rrg To
1. The Additional Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.VII, Coimbatore.
3. The Inspector of Police, Chettipalayam Police Station, Coimbatore District.
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J rrg
Crl.R.C.No.1447 of 2011
04.01.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in