Partly allowed¶40

Sridhar v. The State Rep By, The Inspector of Police

Madras HC10 Nov 2025CRL RC/722/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.RC.No.722 of 2025; High Court of Judicature at Madras; D. Bharatha Chakravarthy J.; decided 10.11.2025; Sections 279, 338, 304(A) IPC; rash and negligent driving causing death; road accident 08.06.2012 Meyyanur Main Road Salem; Cr.No.355 of 2012; C.C.No.76 of 2015 Judicial Magistrate No.II Salem conviction 27.03.2024; Crl.A.No.94 of 2024 I Additional Sessions Judge confirmation 31.01.2025; filed under Section 438 r/w 442 BNSS 2023; conviction and fines confirmed; substantive sentence reduced to period already undergone; partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and fines confirmed (fine payment recorded as already paid); substantive sentence of imprisonment modified to the period already undergone. ¶40

Sridhar Vs The State Rep By, The Inspector of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Conviction and fines confirmed (fine payment recorded as already paid); substantive sentence of imprisonment modified to the period already undergone.

¶40

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC, as confirmed by the appellate court, should stand. +1 more

¶27

Court's answer

The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC by the trial Court judgment dated 27.03.2024 in C.C.No.76 of 2015, as confirmed by the Appellate Court judgment dated 31.01.2025 in Cr.A.No.94 of 2024, shall stand confirmed.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

While confirming the conviction and the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court, the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone can be modified as one of the period already undergone.

¶40

Key takeaways

The punishment relating to the imposition of fine is confirmed and the fact that the fine amount was already paid is recorded.ratio¶42
The sentence of imprisonment is modified as one of the period already undergone.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, J.), Crl.RC.No.722 of 2025, decided 10.11.2025 - Criminal revision under Sections 438 r/w 442 of B.N.S.S 2023 against the judgment dated 31.01.2025 in Crl.A.No.94 of 2024 by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem District, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on 27.03.2024 in C.C.No.76 of 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem for offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC, arising out of a fatal road accident on 08.06.2012 on Meyyanur Main Road, Salem, in which the rider of a two-wheeler suffered grievous injuries and the pillion rider died when the petitioner's Mahindra Pick Up Van dashed against it. Revision partly allowed: the conviction and the fines (Rs.1,000/-, Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/-) stand confirmed and the fine payment is recorded as already paid; the substantive sentence of imprisonment alone is modified to the period already undergone, the Court taking into account that the collision at the busy five-road junction resulted from human error in judging distance rather than aggravated contact, that the accused stopped the vehicle immediately, remained in custody four days after the incident and six days after dismissal of the appeal (ten days in all), that the proceedings had continued for 13 years, and that the 36-year-old accused earns his livelihood lawfully with no other case against him.

¶1

Crl.RC.No.722 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 10.11.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Crl.RC.No.722 of 2025

Sridhar

.. Petitioner

Vs.

State represented by The Inspector of Police, TIW Police Station, Salem. .. Respondent

¶11

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 438 r/w 442 of B.N.S.S 2023, to set aside the judgment passed in Crl.A.No.94 of 2024 dated 31.01.2025 by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem District confirming the Judgement passed in CC.No.76 of 2015 dated 27.03.2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Salem.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Marimuthu For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Revision is filed against the judgement of the learned Judicial

¶15

1/7

¶16

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

¶17

Crl.RC.No.722 of 2025

¶18

Magistrate II, Salem, dated 27.03.2024 made in C.C.No.76 of 2015 and the judgement of the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge dated 31.01.2025 made in Crl.A.No.94 of 2025.

¶19

By the judgment dated 27.03.2024, the trial Court convicted the petitioner/accused as follows:

¶20

*Offence*	*Sentence*
Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code	sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of ?1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one week simple imprisonment;
Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code	sentenced to undergo two months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of ?1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one week simple imprisonment;
Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code	to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of ?5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one week simple imprisonment.

¶21

The case of the prosecution is that on 08.06.2012, at about 7:30 p.m. on the Meyyanur Main Road in front of a shop known as "Indian Batteries", the accused drove a Mahindra Pick Up Van bearing Registration No.TN 30 AF 9497 in a rash and negligent manner and hit and dashed against a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 31 T 0178 causing grievous injuries to the rider of the two wheeler and death of the pillion rider.

¶22

2/7

¶23

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

¶24

Crl.RC.No.722 of 2025

¶25

After the accident, a case was registered in Cr.No.355 of 2012 and the investigation was completed and a final report was filed proposing the accused guilty of the aforesaid offences. The accused denied the allegations and stood trial. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P10. Upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the material evidence as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence.

¶26

Considering the evidence of the injured witness who was examined as P.W.2 and the rough sketch and the other evidences on record proving the manner of the accident, the trial Court held that the prosecution had proved the offences beyond any reasonable doubt and convicted the petitioner as stated in the paragraph no.2, supra . Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the above Crl.A.No.94 of 2024 and the Lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of evidence, confirmed the conviction and sentence against the accused as against which the present revision is filed.

¶27

Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused commenced his arguments on the merits of the charges, upon this Court pointing out the evidence of the injured witness and the other witnesses and the other evidences on record, the learned counsel argued with reference to the question of sentence. I also considered the arguments of the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side).

¶28

3/7

¶29

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

¶30

Crl.RC.No.722 of 2025

¶31

With reference to the question of sentence, I take into consideration the following facts:

¶32

(i) In this case, it must be seen that the accident took place in the evening at about 7:30 p.m. in a busy junction in the Salem city where it leads from five roads to two roads.

¶33

(ii) The second factor which I take into account is the manner in which the two wheeler was ridden and the Pick Up van was driven and upon considering the same, it can be seen that in order to wade through the traffic command, the pick up van had swerved extra to the right and it is a human error in not judging the distance of the two wheeler and causing the accident and it is not because of any aggravated or egregious contact. Secondly, the accused also immediately stopped the vehicle and the van was taken to the police station and in this case, he was even arrested and kept in custody for a period of four days immediately after the incident and the same is also taken into account.

¶34

(iii) The third factor which I take into account is that the accident happened in the year 2012 and the petitioner/accused has been facing the proceedings all along for the past 13 years.

¶35

(iv) The fourth factor which I take into account is that after dismissal of the appeal, once again, the accused was taken into prison and he served for another six days, in all totalling to ten days and the same is also taken into account. The accused is now aged 36 years and he is also having a two month old

¶36

4/7

¶37

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

¶38

Crl.RC.No.722 of 2025

¶39

baby and he is eking out his livelihood in a lawful manner and it is stated that there is no other case as against the accused.

¶40

Considering all the above, I am of the view that while confirming the conviction and the sentence of fine as imposed by the trial Court, the substantive sentence of imprisonment can be alone modified as one of the period already undergone. In view thereof, this Criminal Revision Petition is partly allowed on the following terms:

¶41

(i) The conviction of the petitioner for the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of IPC by the judgement of trial Court dated 27.03.2024 in C.C.No.76 of 2015 and as confirmed by the Appellate Court in judgment dated 31.01.2025 in Cr.A.No.94 of 2024 shall stand confirmed.

¶42

(ii) The punishment relating to the imposition of fine is also confirmed and the fact that the fine amount was already paid is also recorded.

¶43

(iii) As far as the sentence of imprisonment is concerned, the same is modified as one of the period already undergone.

¶44

10.11.2025

¶45

ssa

¶46

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No

¶47

¶48