Allowed

C.Kuppusamy, 40 Years v. State Represented by

Madras HC22 Nov 2022CRL RC/949/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal revision under Cr.P.C against conviction for rash and negligent driving causing death. The court set aside the conviction, finding the prosecution failed to prove the accident resulted from the petitioner's negligent operation of lifting gear. It held the trailer likely lifted automatically due to overloading when a support log was removed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence set aside; petitioner acquitted of all charges; fine refunded; bail bonds cancelled.

C.Kuppusamy, 40 Years Vs State Represented by — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 22.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶7

C.Kuppusamy ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Represented by its The Inspector of Police, Sendhamangalam Police Station, Namakkal District. ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C to set aside the order dated 02.07.2018 in C.A.No.15 of 2017 passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal by confirming the order of the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Namakkal, in C.C.No.17 of 2012 dated 13.03.2017.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.K.V.Dhanapalan For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

Page 1 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶14

ORDER

¶15

This Criminal Revision is directed as against the judgment passed in C.A.No.15 of 2017 dated 02.07.2018 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.17 of 2012 dated 13.03.2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal, thereby convicting the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC.

¶16

The case of the prosecution is that on 05.03.2011, the deceased and others were engaged to cut the sugarcane in the land owned by one Mani which was leased out to one Kuppusamy. They loaded the sugarcane in a tractor bearing registration No.TN285518 in its trailer. On the same day, at about 6.25 pm., in order to move the tractor, they removed the wooden standby which was placed below the sugarcane load box and in that process the victim and another were directed to remove the standby wooden log. At that time, without noticing that whether the persons after removing the wooden standby came out of the place, the petitioner started the tractor in rash and negligent manner. In the said

¶17

Page 2 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶19

process, the petitioner lifted the hydraulic of the tractor and the hook placed in the tractor was unlocked and hence the sugarcane load fell down on the back side, where the deceased was in the process of removing the standby wooden log, due to which the deceased was crushed and died on the spot.

¶20

On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.119 of 2011 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. After completion of investigation the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.17 of 2012 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and also marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On the side of the accused no one was examined and no documents were marked. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found him guilty for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years simple imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo further three months of simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the

¶21

Page 3 of 12

¶22

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

¶23

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶24

petitioner filed appeal and the same was also dismissed by confirming the order passed by the trial Court. Hence this revision.

¶25

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶26

that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the petitioner in the accident. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the deceased and another were directed to remove the wooden log, which was given as standby to load sugarcane and the entire sugarcane load fell down on the deceased and due to which he sustained grievous injury and died on the spot.

¶27

4.1. Further the case of the prosecution is that when the

¶28

petitioner started the tractor to move forward, he operated the lifting gear as such the trailer was lifted and due to which the entire sugarcane was fell down on the deceased. Whereas all the witnesses were spoken that after loading the sugarcane, the petitioner while connecting the trailer to tractor, directed the victim and another to remove the wooden log which was standby the load. While removing the wooden log, the hook which

¶29

Page 4 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶30

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶31

was attached to the tractor automatically removed and the entire sugarcane load fell down on the victim. Therefore, there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner.

¶32

4.2. He further submitted that in fact, while loading the sugarcane, the tractor was not attached to the trailer and while at the time of attaching the trailer with the tractor the accident had occurred. Therefore, the accident was not occurred due to the negligence of the petitioner herein. Even the rough sketch revealed that the tractor was attached with the trailer and body of the deceased was far away from the trailer. It shows that even before attaching the trailer, the entire sugarcane load fell down on the deceased and he died. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt, as if the accident was taken place only because of the negligent action of the petitioner. It is very unfortunate that when the loadmen was loading the sugarcane in the trailer, the trailer lifted on its backside due to over load and fell down on the deceased. Therefore, the petitioner was no way reason for the accident and unfortunately he was convicted by both the Courts below.

¶33

Hence, he prayed to allow this revision.

¶34

Page 5 of 12

¶35

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

¶36

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶37

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the trailer was loaded with loadmen including the deceased. Thereafter, it was attached with tractor and while attaching the trailer, the petitioner directed the deceased and another to remove the standby wooden log on the backside of the trailer. Without even verifying that whether the persons came out of the place after removing the wooden log standby, he tried to move the tractor with trailer. At that juncture, he wrongly operated the lifting gear due to which the hook placed on the tractor was unlocked and the entire sugarcane fell down on the victim. Due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died. Therefore, only because of the negligent action of the petitioner, the accident was taken place and both the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC.

¶38

6. Heard Mr. K.V.Dhanapalan, learned counsel appearing for

¶39

the petitioner and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent police.

¶40

Page 6 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶42

Admittedly, the deceased and others were loaded sugarcane

¶43

in the trailer. After loading the sugarcane, when the petitioner was attaching the trailer with the tractor bearing registration No.TN285518, the entire sugarcane load fell down on the deceased and he died. The case of the prosecution is that while attaching the trailer with tractor, the petitioner directed the deceased and another to remove the standby wooden log on the rear side of the tractor. Without noticing whether the deceased removed the wooden log or not, the petitioner after attaching the trailer attempted to move the tractor forward. At that juncture, the petitioner wrongly operated the lifting gear and the entire sugarcane load fell down on the deceased.

¶44

Whereas on a perusal of deposition of the witnesses revealed

¶45

that all of them including the deceased went for cutting the sugarcane and after cutting the sugarcane in the sugarcane field belonged to one Mani, which was leased out to Kuppusamy, they were directed to load the sugarcane in the trailer, which was attached to the tractor bearing

¶46

Page 7 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶48

registration No.TN285518. Normally, while loading the sugarcane, the loadmen used to give support on the rear side, since they used to over load with the sugarcane in the trailer. They also used to load the sugarcane beyond the trailer length up to the length of the trailer. Therefore, without any support on the rear side, they could not have loaded the sugarcane. After loading the sugarcane, the petitioner tried to move the tractor forward and directed the loadmen viz.., the deceased and another to remove the supporting wooden load which was given in the rear side of the trailer. While removing the wooden log, due to over load, the entire trailer lifted automatically and fell down on the deceased. Therefore, there was no negligent action on the part of the petitioner.

¶49

Further in a tractor there are two lifting lever and one lever is used to operate the lift pulling rod and another lever is meant for lifting the trailer. Both are operated in the hydraulic method. Once the trailer attached with tractor, it can be detached from the tractor by manually. Whereas the lifting lever only used to lift the trailer to unload. Therefore, it was not at all possible for the petitioner to wrongly operate the lifting

¶50

Page 8 of 12

¶51

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

¶52

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶53

lever of the trailer instead of moving the tractor forward. This Court can easily visualize the occurrence that after loading the trailer, the deceased and another were directed to remove the standby wooden log in the rear side of the trailer. While removing the standby wooden log, due to over load, the trailer attached with the tractor automatically lifted without operating the detached rod attached with the tractor and fell down on the deceased. As stated above, the detached rod can be operated only by manual. Therefore, it could not be possible to say that only by the wrong operation of the petitioner, the trailer lifted and entire load of sugarcane fell down on the deceased.

¶54

That apart, the trailer was consisting only two wheels. Therefore, it is not at all possible to load the trailer without attaching the tractor. After attaching with the tractor, they loaded the sugarcane. While loading the sugarcane, they had given wooden log standby on the rear side of the trailer, since they used to over load the sugarcane. While removing the standby wooden log, it automatically lifted and fell down on the deceased. Therefore, it was not happened due to any negligent act

¶55

Page 9 of 12

¶56

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

¶57

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶58

on the driver. Further it was happened immediately after removing the standby wooden log. It is was not the case of the prosecution that while moving forward, the trailer was lifted by wrong operation.

¶59

Further, it is clear from the prosecution witnesses that while removing the standby wooden log, the trailer lifted on its own motion and the entire sugarcane load fell on the deceased. Therefore, the accident was not taken place due to the rash and negligence act of the petitioner herein. Hence the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any doubts and unfortunately both the Courts below without considering the above facts and circumstances mechanically convicted the petitioner, as such the conviction cannot be sustained as against the petitioner and it is liable to be set aside.

¶60

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by the judgment passed in C.A.No.15 of 2017 dated 02.07.2018 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal, confirming the judgment passed in C.C.No.17 of 2012 dated

¶61

Page 10 of 12

¶62

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

¶63

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶64

13.03.2017 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Namakkal, are hereby set aside and the petitioner/accused acquitted of all charges. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to the petitioner forthwith. Bail bonds, if any, executed shall stand cancelled.

¶65

In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition stands allowed.

¶66

22.11.2022

¶67

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order

¶68

rts

¶69

Page 11 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶70

CRL.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶71

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J

¶72

rts

¶73

¶74

The Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal.

¶75

The Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Namakkal.

¶76

The Inspector of Police, Sendhamangalam Police Station, Namakkal District.

¶77

The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶78

Crl.R.C.No.949 of 2018

¶79

22.11.2022

¶80

Page 12 of 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Kuppusamy, 40 Years v. State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Kuppusamy, 40 Years v. State Represented 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

R.Murthiy, Age 45, Vs Baskaran, Age 45

R.Subramani, Vs a.R.Bhoopathi

M/S.Perfect Weighing Systems Vs B.Parvathi

Ramachandran, Aged 36 Years Vs State Rep. by

Pachamuthu, Aged 41 Years, Vs State Represented by Its

S.Siva Subramaniayan Vs the Inspector of Police