BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 06/06/2007 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN Criminal Revision Case.No.738 of 2005 Pappasundaram ... Revision Petitioner Vs State rep. by Inspector of Police, Thiruverumbur Police Station Thiruverumbur, Trichy District, Cr.No.1213 of 2001 ... Respondent PRAYER This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II Trichirappalli in C.A.No.12 of 2005 dated 31.10.2005 modifying the conviction and sentence imposed to the Revision petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6, Trichirappalli in C.C.No.157 of 2002 dated 20.12.2004. !For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muthukrishnan ^For Respondent : Mr.Siva Ayyappan,GA (Crl.Side) :ORDER
This Revision is directed against the judgment passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track CourtNo.II Trichirappalli in
C.A.No.12 of 2005 dated 31.10.2005 modifying the conviction and sentence imposed
to the Revision petitioner by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.6,
Trichirappalli in C.C.No.157 of 2002 dated 20.12.2004.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
P.W.1, Thilagavathy, is the resident of Thiruverumbur. P.W.2 Shanmugam is
the father of P.W.1. P.W.3, Chandra is the wife of P.W.2. Gangaiammal, the
deceased is the grand mother of P.W.1. P.W.4, Sekar, is the Auto driver of the
auto bearing Registration No.TNX 6645. They wanted to proceed to Kailash Nagar.
P.Ws.1 to 3 and the deceased Gangaiammal were sent by an auto. When the auto was
nearing the Kailash Nagar bus stop, the bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 N 1605
driven by the accused and dashed against the Auto from the backside, thereby
auto was thrown away. The victims were injured. P.W.14 was the conductor of the
bus. The Revision petitioner/accused is the driver of the bus. After the
accident, both the driver and conductor left the place. P.W.13, the Sub
Inspector who was in-charge of the Thiruverumbur Police Station, received a
message from Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited Hospital. He went there and
recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.1213 of 2001
under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.7, the printed First
Information Report. Then the investigation taken up by the P.W.15, Selvaraj, the
Inspector of Police. He proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared
Ex.P.2, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.9, the Rough Sketch in the presence
of P.W.8, Murali and P.W.9, Damodharan.
Thereafter, he seized the Auto bearing Registration No.TNX 6645 and sent it to
one Selvaraj, the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection. Further, he conducted
inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex.P.10, the Inquest Report in the
presence of witnesses and the body was sent for Post-mortem along with a
requisition to the Annal Gandhi Memorial Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli.
P.W.11, Karthikeyan, the doctor attached to the said hospital conducted Post-
mortem and has given Ex.P.11, the Post-mortem Certificate, wherein he has opined
that “the deceased would appear to have died of Thoracic cage wounds and Head
wounds”. Thereafter, P.W.15, recorded the statements of Thilagavathy, Chandra,
Sekar, Renukadevan, Thiyagarajan. He arrested the accused and released him on
bail and he also recovered the trip sheet. Further, he recorded the statements
of Rangabashyam and Thirunavukkarasu, the doctors and recorded the statement of
Karthikeyan, the doctor who conducted the Post-mortem and received Ex.P.11, the
Post-mortem Certificate. He also received Ex.P.12, the Motor Vehicle Inspection
Report for the bus and Ex.P.13, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report for the
Auto. After completion of investigation, he filed a Charge sheet against the
accused under Sections 279, 337 (4 counts) and 304(A) I.P.C.
3. Before the trial Court on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 15
were examined, Ex.P.1 to 13 were marked.
4. On consideration of all the evidence available on record, the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Trichirappalli, found the accused guilty
for an offence punishable under Sections 279, 337 (4 counts) and 304(A) I.P.C.,
and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment to undergo
simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 279
I.P.C, and directed him to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default of payment to
undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month each for the offence under
Section 337(4 counts) and sentenced him to undergo six months Rigourous
Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5000/- in default of payment to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence under Section 304(A)
I.P.C. Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned trial Judge, an appeal was
preferred before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court
No.II, Trichirappalli in C.A.No.12 of 2005, where the learned Additional
District and Sessions Judge modified the conviction and sentence of the the
learned Judicial Magistrate. Challenging the Judgment of the Appellate Court,
this Revision has been filed by the Revision Petitioner.
5. The point for determination is:-
“Whether the Revision is maintainable?”
Point:-
The power of the Revisional Court is defined and classified clearly by the
Apex Court. Following the same, this court has limited jurisdiction. This
court can interfere only when the material evidence is overlooked or there is
miscarriage of jusitice. It must be shown by the Revision Petitioner that this
court can interfere as per the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court.
(ii) On the fateful day, i.e., 04.12.2001 at 9.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and
the deceased were travelling in an Auto bearing Registration No.TNX 6645 of
P.W.4 and they were proceeding from Wesr to East. P.W.4 was driving the auto.
When the auto was coming near the Kailash Nagar bus stop, the bus driven by the
accused and dashed against the auto, thereby the auto capsized in the accident.
P.W. 1 to 3 sustained injury and Gangaiammal died. The vehicles, viz., the auto
and the bus, were inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and respective
reports were received. Witnesses P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined by the doctors and
respective Wound Certificates under Exs.P.3 to 6 were received. No doubt the
vehicle was driven by the accused on that date which was spoken by P.W.14, the
conductor of the bus. His evidence would show that the vehicle was driven by the
accused. After the accident, both of them left the place. It is clear that the
vehicle was driven by the accused.
(iii) The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that there
is no evidence would show that the vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent
manner. But the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would show that the bus was driven by
the accused in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto driven by
P.W.4. The scene of occurrence is the bus stop. Naturally, a bus must come in a
slow speed. But due to the accident, the auto was thrown away from the scene of
occurrence. This is evident from the sketch. The sketch will exhibit the manner
of accident. Witnesses spoke cogently about the rash and negligent driving of
the driver of the bus. There is no reason to reject their evidence. Hence the
submission of the counsel that the bus was not driven rash and negligently false
to ground.
(iv) At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner is argued
that the scene of occurrence is not in Kailash Nagar bus stop and it is away 3
km from the scene
of occurrence as claimed by the prosecution. So the prosecution is bound to
fail. No doubt that P.W.4, the auto driver spoke that the occurrence took place
3 km away from the Kailash Nagar bus stop. A perusal of the Sketch would show
that near the bus stop, there is north south road which is leading to Kailash
Nagar Township. It is the intention of the parties to go to Kailash Nagar 3rd
Street. If that is the case, they need not to go 3 km away from the bus stop.
Naturally, they have to turn near the bus stop. while being so, the evidence of
P.W.4 that the occurrence took place 3 km away from the bus stop is not correct.
At this juncture, fairly submitted by the counsel that the auto driver is not in
a position to speak about the accident correctly. Even if the auto driver’s
evidence is rejected, the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 and 12 would show that the
scene of occurrence is the Kailash Nagar bus stop which was confirmed by the
Investigating Officer and the sketch and the evidence on record would show that
the accident occurred near the Kailash Nagar bus stop. The bus was driven in a
rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto from backside. The
investigating officer has not taken care to examine the Postmortem doctor. Now,
the death and the accident is not disputed.
6. On careful consideration of evidence, I find that the witnesses are
injured and one old lady was killed in that accident. Both the Trial Court and
the Appellate Court after meticulously considering the evidence on record, came
to a conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence. I find there is no
reason to differ with the finding of the courts below and the prosecution prove
the case satisfactorily. Hence, the Judgments of both the Courts below are
confirmed.
Accordingly this Revision is dismissed.
To
1. The Judicial Magistrare No.6,
Trichirappalli.
2. The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court No.2
Trichirappalli.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Thiruverumbur Police Station
Thiruverumbur.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.