Bus driver convicted for rash and negligent driving while using a mobile phone caused an accident injuring passengers. The revisional court declined to interfere with concurrent factual findings of the trial and appellate courts, noting no perversity, and dismissed the revision confirming the reduced sentence.
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.(MD)No.537 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 20.12.2023 Pronounced On : 22.02.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.R.C(MD)No.537 of 2019
Subramanian ... Petitioner/Appellant/Sole Accused Vs.
State rep. by its The Sub Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District. Crime No.250/08 ... Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C., to call for records relating to the judgment passed by III-Additional Session Court, Tirunelveli in Crl.A.29 of 2018 dated 12.03.2019 modifying the
Judgment passed by the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi in S.T.C.1691 of 2009 dated 14.02.2018 and set aside the same and may acquit the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.P.Narayana Kumar
For Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor
1/9
ORDER
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.537 of 2019
The petitioner is the sole accused in S.T.C.1691 of 2009 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Cheranmahadevi. The learned trial Judge vide order dated 14.02.2018, convicted the petitioner under Sections 279, 337 (21 counts) and 338 (3 counts) and sentenced him to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment of the offence under Section 279 IPC; to undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.500/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337(21 counts); to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment each and fine of Rs.1000/-each, for the offence under Section 338 (3counts) and in default to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment.
2/9
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.537 of 2019
the learned trial Judge. The learned trial Judge took the final report on file in S.T.C.No.169 of 2009 and summoned the accused and on his appearance the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C., were supplied. Thereafter, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. He pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
3.To prove the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW28 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P32. The learned trial Judge, on the basis of the available evidence, questioned the accused by putting the incriminating materials available against him. The accused denied the same as false and hence the case was posted for defence side evidence. On the side of the accused, neither witness was examined nor documents were marked.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.537 of 2019
offence under Section 338 (3 counts) and in default to undergo 2 months simple imprisonment vide judgment dated 14.02.2018. Challenging the same, he preferred an appeal before the appellate Court/III-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in Crl.A. No.29 of 2018. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence to three months each and confirmed the fine amount. In the said circumstances, challenging the said conviction and sentence, he filed this revision before this Court.
4/9
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.537 of 2019
of the prosecution that the petitioner had driven the vehicle by chatting over the mobile phone. Hence, the prosecution ought to have seized the mobile phone of the petitioner. In the said circumstances, both the Courts below have not considered the above infirmity of the prosecution case. Hence, he seeks to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge as well as the Appellate Judge.
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.537 of 2019
6/9
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.537 of 2019
offences. It is settled principle that unless there is manifest perversity and illegality, this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the finding of the learned trial Judge as well as the learned Appellate Judge. When both the Courts below believed the evidence of more than 24 injured witnesses, this Court has no reason to interfere with the same. Hence, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 at page 205 this Court is not inclined to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below:
16. It is well settled that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the High Court does not, in the absence of perversity, upset concurrent factual findings. It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.
22.02.2024
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No PJL/ sbn
7/9
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.537 of 2019
To
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.537 of 2019
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
PJL
Pre-delivery Order made in Crl.R.C(MD). No.537 of 2019
22.02.2024
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court in revision could interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC for rash and negligent driving causing injuries.
Whether contradictions among some injured witnesses on mobile phone use created a benefit of doubt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Bir Singh v. Mukesh KumarRelied on¶8
Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197 at page 205 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subramanian
State rep. by its The Sub Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District
K.K.Ramakrishnan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
