Dismissed

Mr.Mohamed Sheriff, S/O.Mustaq v. State by the Inspector of

Madras HC10 Nov 2021CRL RC/311/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal revision petition filed by a convicted lorry driver. The court upheld the conviction for rash and negligent driving resulting in death and injuries, rejecting the defense theory of a detached wheel in favor of evidence from independent witnesses and drivers.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision petition was dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the petitioner.

Mr.Mohamed Sheriff, S/O.Mustaq Vs State by the… — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Bail Slip

¶2

Mohammed Sheriff Petitioner herein/Accused in C.C No.133/2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri was released on bail by the order of this Court dated 05/08/2015 and made in Crl.M.P.No.1/15 pending on the file of this Court.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

Date of Reserving Order Date of Pronouncing Order 27.10.2021 10.11.2021

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2015

¶8

Mohamed Sheriff ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

State by: The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Rural Circle, Gurubarapalli Police Station. ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 397(1) read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order and judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Krishnagiri in Crl.A.No.21 of 2014 on 20.10.2014 in confirming the judgment, conviction and sentence passed on 05.04.2014 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Krishnagiri on the file in C.C.No.133/2006 convicting the petitioner/accused under Sectiosns 304 A, 338 and 337 of IPC and under Section 304-A, (8 counts) and sentenced one year rigorous imprisonment for each count and fined Rs.2,000/- for each count (Total Rs.16,000/-) in default 3 months simple imprisonment, under Section 338 (7 counts) and sentenced 6 months rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs.500/- for each count(Total Rs.3,500/-) in default 3 months simple imprisonment and under Section 337(14 counts) fined Rs.500/- for each count (Total Rs.7000/-) in default 3 months simple imprisonment and the sentences are to run concurrently.

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr. B. Nedunchezhiyan For Respondent : Mr. S. Vinoth Kumar, Public Prosecutor O R D E R

¶14

The matter is heard through "Video Conference".

¶15

2. Convicted sole accused is the revision petitioner herein.

¶16

This criminal revision petition is filed against the judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Krishnagiri in Crl.A.No.21 of 2014 on 20.10.2014 in confirming the judgment, passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Krishnagiri in C.C.No.133/2006, dated 05.04.2014 by the on the file in convicting the petitioner under Section 304A, 338 and 337 of IPC and under Section 304-A, (8 counts) and sentenced one year rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.2,000/- for each count (Total Rs.16,000/-) in default 3 months simple imprisonment, under Section 338 (7 counts) and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- for each count (Total Rs.3500) in default three months simple imprisonment and under Section 337 (14 counts) fine of Rs.500/- for each count (Total Rs.7000) in default three months simple imprisonment and the sentences are to run concurrently.

¶17

After investigation, the respondent/police filed charge sheet in Crime No.660/2000, alleging that on 09.11.2000, at about 13.15 hours, when the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 29 J 2898, was coming from Bangalore to Hosur, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the Transport bus, bearing Registration No.TN29 N 0875, which was proceeding from Hosur to Krishnagiri, whereas, the lorry coming from opposite direction, dashed against the bus with great impact, thereby, 8 persons have died on the spot, 7 persons have sustained grievous injuries and 14 persons have sustained simple injuries.

¶18

4(a) Accordingly, final report has been filed under Sections 279, 337 (14counts), 338(7counts) and 304A (8counts).

¶19

During trial, the persons who suffered simple

¶20

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶21

injuries, the persons who suffered grievous injuries and the legal representatives of the deceased 8 persons, were also examined as prosecution witnesses.

¶22

5(a) On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.42 were examined and Exs.P1 to P46 were marked.

¶23

5(b) Besides, Conductor of the bus was examined as P.W.1, Driver of the bus was examined as P.W.2 and cleaner of the lorry was examined as P.W.3. Attestor of the observation mahazars were examined as P.W.4 to P.W.8, Motor Vehicle Inspector is examined as P.W.23 and Doctors were examined as P.W.24, P.W.25 and P.W.27. Head Constable who have accompanied the deceased is examined as P.W.26 and investigation has been carried on by four Inspectors at different point of time, were examined as P.W.30 to P.W.33.

¶24

Based upon the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, coupled with the evidence of injured-P.Ws.18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 34 to 42, coupled with Ex.P45, the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry.

¶25

It remains to be stated that Ex.P3 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector Report for the bus while Ex.P4 is that of the lorry. The said finding is confirmed by the lower appellate Court and hence, the revision.

¶26

The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein would contend that even before coming to the existence of FIR, investigation has been commenced and relied upon the evidence of P.W.2/Driver of the bus and also challenged the Motor Vehicle Report.

¶27

The defence theory of the accused is that the wheel of the lorry was cut off, whereby, the wheel was separated that only dashed against the bus. In short, the accident had occurred due to the axle of the lorry was cut off and wheel was separated from the lorry that resulted in the accident.

¶28

The learned Public Prosecutor made a submission in support of the judgment of both the Courts below.

¶29

P.W.1 is the conductor of the bus. P.W.2 is the driver of the bus. P.W.3 is the cleaner of the bus. Injured were examined as P.W.9, P.W.13, P.W.14 and P.W.16 to P.W.22. P.W.23 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector who had issued Ex.P4/Motor

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶31

Vehicle Report for the lorry. P.W.22/Motor Vehicle Inspector has deposed that on 09.11.2000, he has received instructions and hence, at 3.30 pm, he went to the scene of occurrence and inspected the vehicle and issued the statement of report. As per the report, wheels of the vehicles were intact.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner trying to impress upon this Court by placing reliance upon the evidence of P.W.3. As per P.W.3s version, when the lorry found proceeding, he heard some noise after that the wheel of the lorry was detached from the vehicle and came in front of the lorry. Thereafter, the accident has occurred.

¶33

It remains to be stated that he is the cleaner of the lorry, whose driver has been stands charged for the accused. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.1 coupled with the injured witnesses, as stated supra, it is the specific evidence that lorry has dashed against the bus. Due to the impact of the collusion, thereafter, the axle of the lorry was broken and therefore, in view of the presence of the overwhelming evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 coupled with the independent witnesses namely, the injured, I find that the version of P.W.3 is self serving statement to save his colleague the accused herein. Accordingly, I have no hesitation to hold that the version of P.W.3 is interested witnesses in favour of the accused and the same has to be excluded from consideration.

¶34

14 (a).In view of the presence of the independent witnesses who are injured, as many as 21 witnesses, their narration of the incident is sufficient to hold the finding rendered by Courts below is just and proper, as the same does not warrant any interference.

¶35

(b) It is a massive accident on the main road wherein, more than 8 persons have died on the spot, more than 21 persons have suffered and many are them suffered from grievous injuries. The manner of the accident as spoken to P.W.1, P.W.2 coupled with independent witnesses inspired that goes to show that the lorry driver, the revision petitioner herein, drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bus in such an enormity and negligence, whereby, the lorry and the bus are totally damaged, wherein, 8 persons have been died on the spot.

¶36

Accordingly, I have no hesitation to uphold the finding rendered by both the Courts below for the charge under Sections 304(A) (8 counts), 338 (7counts) 337(14 counts) and hence, the conviction laid by both the Courts below for the

¶37

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶38

above said charges are hereby confirmed.

¶39

On the point of quantum of sentence, both the

¶40

parties heard.

¶41

Taking into the entirety of the circumstances, I find that one year rigorous imprisonment for each charge and fine of Rs.2,000/- for 304(A) and 6 months for 338 with fine of Rs.500 for each count cannot be termed as excessive. Besides, both the Courts below also ordered for concurrent of the sentence and hence, the same cannot be termed as excessive.

¶42

Accordingly, this criminal revision petition stands dismissed.

SD/-

ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

// TRUE COPY //

SUB ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶47

AT To

¶48

1.The Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Rural Circle, Gurubarapalli Police Station.

¶49

2.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

¶50

3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.

¶51

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.

¶52

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶53

+1cc to M/s.B.Nedunchezhiyan, Advocate Sr.58579

¶54

Crl.R.C.No.311 of 2015

¶55

rgn[co] srg 30/11/2021

¶56

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Mr.Mohamed Sheriff, S/O.Mustaq v. State by the Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Mohamed Sheriff, S/O.Mustaq v. State by the Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhu, Vs State by Inspector of Police

V.Shanmugam Vs Palanisamy

Kalidass Vs State Rep. by

P.Kannammal Vs a.Mani

Ponmalai Gounder Vs Mani

Sheriff Vs Abdullah