Allowed

Mohanraj, Aged 28 Years, v. State by

Madras HC29 Sept 2022CRL RC/118/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal revision, the High Court of Madras examined whether evidence established criminal negligence on the part of the petitioner. Finding that eyewitnesses deposed the other vehicle caused the accident and the police failed to trace it, the court held the prosecution failed to prove rash or negligent driving and acquitted the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Section 304(A) of IPC in CC.No.128 of 2011 and the confirmation in CA.No.42 of 2017 were set aside; petitioner acquitted.

Mohanraj, Aged 28 Years, Vs State by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 29.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.RC.No.118 of 2018

¶7

Mohanraj ... Petitioner Vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, Erode District crime No.492 of 2011 ... Respondent

¶8

PRAYER:

¶9

Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the judgment dated 14.11.2017 made in CA.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Court, Namakkal confirming the conviction imposed in judgment dated 27.06.2017 made in CC.No.128 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode by allowing this criminal revision petition.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Subramanian for Mr.SP.Yuaraj For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side)

¶11

ORDER

¶12

This criminal revision is directed as against the judgment

¶13

dated 14.11.2017 passed in CA.No.42 of 2017 on the file of the

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

1/10

¶16

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶17

Sessions(Fast Track Mahila) Court, Namakkal, thereby confirmed the conviction imposed in judgment dated 27.06.2017 passed in CC.No.128 of 2011 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, thereby convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 15.05.2011, at about 12.00 noon, the petitioner drove the vehicle i.e. maruti omni van bearing registration No.TN 36 U 2496 in a rash and negligent manner and endangering to human life at Komarapalayam to Edappadi Road near Paraiyur Rajagounder Sugarcane farm, hit against eicher van and cause death to the person who travelled in the van and thereby committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. The respondent after completion of investigation filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in CC.No.128 of 2011 for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

¶19

The prosecution have examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. On the side of the petitioner, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10

¶20

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶21

the trial court found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Section 279 of IPC and imposed fine of Rs.1,000/- and convicted for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred appeal and the appellate court set aside the conviction passed under Section 279 of IPC and confirmed the conviction passed under Section 304(A) of IPC.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there

¶23

is no evidence on the side of the prosecution that the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Even the wife of the deceased was examined as PW6 and she deposed that the eicher vehicle hit the omni van in which the deceased travelled and she does not know and there is no eyewitness for the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. Even according to the prosecution witnesses PW1 and PW6, who travelled in the same van, revealed that there is no evidence that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The respondent failed to trace out the vehicle which hit the vehicle which was driven by the petitioner. All the witnesses deposed that only because of the rash and negligent

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

3/10

¶26

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶27

driving of the eicher vehicle, the accident took place and due to which the deceased sustained injury and died. He further submitted that when the petitioner drove the vehicle in an average speed and in the curve, from the opposite side eicher lorry which was driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit the rear side of the right hand side of the van and due to which, the person who was sitting in the rear right hand side sustained grievous injuries and died. Except the deceased, no one was injured. In fact, the said eicher van hit and run away. The respondent also did not take any steps to trace the said vehicle and only for the insurance purpose, the petitioner was made an accused and now he is facing conviction.

¶28

The learned Government Advocate(crl.side) would submit that PW1 and PW6 are eyewitnesses to the occurrence who also travelled in the same van. PW6 is none other than the wife of the deceased. On the date of the accident, their marriage was solemnised and while returning from marriage hall, the accident took place only because of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. PW6 was sitting in the rear left side in the maruti van and who had seen the driving of the petitioner in a rash and negligent manner. Due to his driving, the accident took place and as such,

¶29

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

4/10

¶31

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶32

the trial court rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. The motor vehicle inspection report was

¶33

marked as Ex.P7 and accordingly, the accident did not take place on any mechanical fault of the vehicle. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved that only because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, the accident took place and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died.

¶34

Heard, Mr.V.Subramanian, the learned counsel for the

¶35

petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate(crl.side) appearing for the respondent / police.

¶36

On perusal of the records, on the complaint lodged by PW1, PW10 registered FIR in crime No.492 of 2011 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC dated 15.05.2011. The deceased got married with PW6 and while returning to their home in an omni maruti van bearing registration No.TN 36 U 2496 which was driven by the petitioner herein along with other relatives. While the van was nearing Paraiyur, from the opposite side, one eicher lorry was driven by its driver and hit the right rear side of the van. The deceased was sitting in the rear right hand side of

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

5/10

¶39

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶40

the van and he kept his right hand outside the car and hit the right hand, which was severed and he also sustained head injury. Subsequently, he died on the spot. Except the deceased, no one sustained injury. PW1 and PW6 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence.

¶41

PW1 deposed that while he was sitting in the left side on the front side of the van and the petitioner drove the car towards north. At that juncture, from the opposite side, eicher vehicle was driven by its driver and while about to hit the maruti van, the petitioner suddenly turned the vehicle on left hand side. However, the eicher vehicle hit the rear right hand side of the van. The deceased kept his hand outside the van and as such, his entire right hand was severed due to hit of the eicher vehicle. He also sustained head injury and died on the spot. Though he stated that the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, in the circumstances in which the petitioner turned vehicle on his left hand side, when the eicher vehicle goes straight to the petitioner's vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, even then it hit the rear right hand side of the van. Further, the eicher vehicle was not stopped by its driver and ran away. In fact, the respondent also did not take any steps to trace the said vehicle. It shows that the eicher van was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

6/10

¶44

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶45

manner and only on the negligence on the part of the driver of the eicher vehicle, the accident took place.

¶46

The wife of the deceased was sitting in the left rear side of the maruti van. She also deposed that when the maruti van was proceeding to northern side and while turning to right side, from the opposite side, eicher vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and while about to hit the maruti van, the petitioner turned the vehicle on left hand side. Even then, the eicher vehicle hit the rear right hand side of the van and due to which, her husband i.e. the deceased sustained injury and died. Admittedly, the respondent did not take any steps to trace out the vehicle which hit the maruti van. If at all the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, it would be a head on collision. It is seen from the nature of accident, only on the rash and negligent driving of the eicher vehicle, the accident took place and the deceased sustained grievous injuries and died. That apart, there was no evidence to show that the petitioner had driven the maruti van in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner had drove the van in a rash and negligent manner, due to which the accident took place.

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶48

7/10

¶49

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶50

On perusal of the evidence of investigation officer also revealed that the petitioner was arrested only after four days from the date of the accident. If at all the petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the respondent would have arrested him immediately. It shows that the respondent without any other option, foisted entire falsity against the petitioner and arrested him since the respondent did not take any steps to trace out the vehicle which was original cause for the accident. In order to prove the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, proof of criminal rashness or criminal negligence is essential. Accident merely due to error of judgment of the driver or without anything to show that he was conscious of the risk that evil consequences will follow or that his rash driving was of such a degree as to amount to taking hazard knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to be occasioned thereby would not make the driver criminally liable. Further, merely because the vehicle was driven by its driver at high speed, it does not mean that the vehicle was driven either rashly or negligently. It would not satisfy the requirement of the driver driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner as required under Section 304A of IPC. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the rash and negligent act of the petitioner

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

8/10

¶53

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶54

since there is no piece of evidence to prove the same.

¶55

In view of the above and considering the circumstances in

¶56

which the accident took place, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained and it warrants interference of this Court.

¶57

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Court, Namakkal in CA.No.42 of 2017 dated 14.11.2017 in respect of the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC is hereby set aside. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of all charges in CC.No.128 of 2011 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled.

¶58

29.09.2022

¶59

Speaking/non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes lok

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

9/10

¶62

Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018

¶63

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶64

lok

¶65

¶66

1.The Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Court, Namakkal

¶67

2.The learned Judicial Magistrate,

¶68

Tiruchengode

¶69

3.Sub Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, Erode District

¶70

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras

¶71

Crl.RC.No.118 of 2018

¶72

29.09.2022

¶73

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶74

10/10

Mohanraj, Aged 28 Years, v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohanraj, Aged 28 Years, v. State by

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

N.Manimegalai, Aged 38 Years Vs Madhan

A.Loganathan, M/a 35 Yrs, Vs K.Sellamuthu, M/a 59 Yrs

K.P.Kumaran, Vs P.Krishnan

Ayyanar, Age 40 Years Vs Chinnathayee

P.Ramraj, Aged 45/2018 Vs S.Sasikala

S.Bimal Kumar Jain, Vs N.Jambulingam