IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.03.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM CRL.R.C.No.184 of 2006 V.Ramachandran .. Petitioner vs State rep.by The Inspector of Police Traffic Investigation Wing (East) Coimbatore .. Respondent Revision filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.511 of 2004 dated 10.01.2006 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore in C.C.No.14 of 2001 dated 16.11.2004. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagadish Chandra For Respondent : Mr.J.C.Durairaj Government Advocate (Criminal side) ORDER
The revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore in C.C.No.14 of 2001 dated 16.11.2004 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each of the offences under Sections 338 and 279 of IPC and ordered the sentences to run concurrently, which was confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.511 of 2004 dated 10.01.2006. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.12.2000 at about 10.45 a.m, the deceased was riding his scooter in which, PW6 was a pillion rider and P.Ws. 2, 3 and 7 were following them in another vehicle. At that time, a Marutii omni van being driven by the accused, came in the opposite direction in a high speed and dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased and due to the impact, the deceased and the pillion rider fell down. The deceased died in the hospital. Ex.P1 is the post mortem certificate. The complaint is Ex.P2, which was given by one Krishnamoorthy; Ex.P3 is the Observation Mahazar. PW6 was examined by the Doctor and he issued Ex.P4, the wound certificate. Ex.P5 is the Death intimation of the deceased; Ex.P6 is the report given by the Motor Vehicles Inspector; Ex.P7 is the first information report; Ex.P8 is the rough sketch and Ex.P9 is the inquest report. PW9 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. Both the Courts below after considering the evidence convicted the petitioner/accused.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the witnesses admitted that there was a iron grill divider in between the road and no damage was caused to the grill divider. Hence, it is not possible for the vehicle driven by the driver of the Maruti van to go to the other side of the road without causing damage to the divider. As such, the prosecution case is not true.
4. Learned Government Advocate(crl.side) submitted that PW6 is an injured witness. He had spoken about the vehicle Maruthi van being driven rashly and he also has stated that at the place of occurrence there was no divider.
5. This Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the judgments given by both the courts below and also perused the other records. Both the Courts relied on the injured witness and other witnesses, which clearly proved the rashness and negligent on the part of the accused. This Court also does not find any infirmity in the conviction passed by both the Courts below.
6. With regard to the sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the occurrence had taken place on 12.12.2000. Now almost 7 years had elapsed and he is only working in a private firm and he has to support his family and therefore prayed for leniency.
T.SUDANTHIRAM,J.,
vj2
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitiner and as the petitioner had been in prison for 46 days, the period of imprisonment alone is modified for the period already undergone for the offence under Section 304-A IPC. The petitioner is to pay an additional fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) for the offence under Section 304 A of IPC in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
8. Accordingly, this Criminal revision is partly allowed confirming the conviction and modifying the sentence imposed on the petitioner for the period already undergone. The additional fine amount now imposed is to be paid within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
27.03.2008
vj2
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge
Coimbatore
2. The Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras
CRL.R.C.No.184 of 2006