Partly allowed
Mahendiran, Age 24 Years, v. the Station House Officer
Madras HCCRL RC/1072/2018
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS…
What the court decided
AI extract
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
Mahendiran
... Petitioner
Vs.
The Station House Officer, Sankarpuram P.S. Crime No.49 of 2015. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C to set-aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner in the Judgment passed by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi in C.A.No.56 of 2018 dated 13.08.2018 confirming the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram in C.C.No.135 of 2015 dated 27.06.2018 by allowing this Criminal Revision Petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Munuswamy for Mr.R.Arun Dattan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment
passed by the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kallakurichi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 9
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
in C.A.No.56 of 2018 dated 13.08.2018 confirming the Judgment passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sankarapuram in C.C.No.135 of 2015 dated 27.06.2018, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.135 of 2015 by the Trial
Court for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
the middle of the road without obeying the traffic rules and committed the accident. Only because of the rash and negligent driving of the victim, the accident had taken place. Though, the accident allegedly occurred on 07.06.2015, the victim lodged the complaint, on 08.06.2015. There is no explanation for the belated complaint. That apart, he was admitted into the Government Hospital, Villupuram and he was discharged only on 10.06.2015. Whereas, he lodged complaint on 08.06.2015. Further, all the witnesses are close relatives of the victim and all are interested witnesses. No independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove its case beyond any doubt. The case has been foisted as against the petitioner only to claim insurance and nothing else.
Page 4 of 9
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
referred to higher hospital for further treatment. After the funeral of the deceased, he lodged the complaint on 08.06.2015 and admitted into the Government Hospital, Kallakurichi, on 09.06.2015. Thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital on 10.06.2015. Therefore, there was no delay and there was no contradiction with regard to lodging of complaint and admission into the hospital. P.W.6 and P.W.12 are eye witnesses and they categorically deposed that only on the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, the accident occurred, due to which, one person died and one person sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner and nothing warrants to interfere by this Court.
appearing for the respondent.
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
the accident had taken place and they were thrown out from the vehicle. The pillion rider sustained head injury and died on the spot. As far as P.W.1 is concerned, he sustained fracture on his right hand and immediately he was taken to Government Hospital, Sankarapuram and he was treated and given wound certificate, which was marked as Ex.P4. Thereafter, on 08.06.2015, he lodged a complaint before the respondent and the same was marked as Ex.P1 and the FIR was marked as Ex.P8. The rough sketch was marked as Ex.P9. On a perusal of rough sketch, it clearly shows that the accident had taken place on the left hand side of the road. Though, P.W.1 did not possess any valid license to drive the two wheeler, it does not mean that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner.
in which the accident had taken place. It is also corroborated by P.W.6 and P.W.12, who are eye witnesses to the occurrence. They categorically deposed that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused accident. The Doctor, who issued wound certificate to P.W.1 was examined as P.W.4. The Doctor, who conducted postmortem was examined as P.W.5. P.W.4 deposed that due to the accident, P.W.1 sustained fracture on his right hand and
he was referred to another hospital for higher treatment. After lodging the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 9
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
complaint, P.W.1 was again admitted to the Government Hospital, Villupuram. Therefore, the prosecution proved its case beyond any doubt and the Courts below rightly found the petitioner guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of IPC.
02.11.2022
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No
Page 7 of 9
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
mn
To
Page 8 of 9
CRL.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
Sankarpuram P.S.
High Court, Madras.
Crl.R.C.No.1072 of 2018
02.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 9
Mahendiran
The Station House Officer, Sankarpuram P.S.
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court