Muthukrishnan v. The Inspector Of Police
Bail Slip The Appellant/Accused namely, Muthukrishnan C.C.No.85 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri, was directed to be released on bail in and by the Order of this court dated 22/07/2009 made in Crl.MP.No.1 of 2009 in Crl.RC.No.651 of 2009, On the file of the High Court, Madras
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.9.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN CRL.RC.No. 651 of 2009 Muthukrishnan .. Petitioner
Versus
State represented by Inspector of Police Kaveripattinam .. Respondent (Crime No.434 of 2005) Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records made in C.C.No.85 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri - Order dated 31.10.2006 as confirmed by judgment made in C.A.No.88 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District cum Sessions Court, Krishnagiri - order dated 21.4.2009 set aside the same. For Petitioner :
Mr.Babu Rangasamy For Respondent :
Mr.V.Arul Government Advocate (Crl.side)
ORDER
On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant/P.W.1, namely, Gowran, a case in Crime No. 434 of 2005 was filed against the accused/ the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC. After investigation, final report has been filed and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.85 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri. After trial, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Against which, the accused has filed Crl.A. No. 88 of 2006 before the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.5.2005, at about 20.45 hours, on Dharmapuri to Krishnagiri main road near mill medu, the accused being the driver of the bus bearing registration No.T.N.07 N 9299 proceeding from Krishnagiri in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one Scooterist Murugan. As a result of which, the said Murugan sustained multiple injuries and died. In this context, the defacto complainant/P.W.1 had given a complaint based on which the accused was proceeded with for the offences as mentioned above.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not argue on merits but confined his argument only on the question of sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a driver of the State Transport Corporation and if sentence of imprisonment is imposed on him, it will affect his legal right. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is having only two years of service and is going to retire in another two years. The learned counsel also submits that the petitioner is not having any previous case and he is the sole bread winner of the family and he has to take care of his children and he has already paid the fine amount as awarded by the Courts below. It is submitted that the petitioner is repenting his misdeeds and is also willing to pay some compensation to the family members of the deceased. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for showing leniency in reduction of sentence.
4. Learned Government Advocate submitted that due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the accused/petitioner, the accident had occurred. However, the learned Government Advocate admits that the petitioner is not having any previous case. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that nowadays, death are increasing due to these type of accident and, therefore, the Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Government Advocate that leniency has already been shown by the Courts below by imposing minimum punishment on the accused. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prays for dismissal of the revision.
5. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State and perused the materials on record.
6. The trial court convicted the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) I.P.C and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.
7. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 304 (A) IPC and the same has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. But now the petitioner contends that he is going to retire in another two years and if sentence of imprisonment is imposed on him, it will affect his future career. The petitioner has also paid the fine amount awarded by the Courts below and is also willing to pay some
compensation to the family of the deceased. But, mere compensation will not compensate the death of the person.
8. However, taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family, the fact that he is going to retire in another two years and that he is not having any previous case and that he voluntarily agreed to pay some amount towards compensation, I am of the view that instead of sending him jail, he may be directed to pay some amount as compensation. Further, Section 304 (A) contemplates the question of sentence or fine or both.
9. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction imposed by the Courts below, the sentence is modified to that payment of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The petitioner shall deposits a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) towards compensation to the credit of C.C.No.85 of 2006 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate No.I, Krishnagiri, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the trial Court shall hand over the said amount to the family of the deceased, on proper identification. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the compensation amount within the time stipulated by this Court, he shall undergo the period of sentence as ordered by the Courts below. With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.
ga Sd/- Assistant Registrar (Judicial) /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar To
1. The Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Krishnagiri
2. The Additional District cum Sessions Court, Krishnagiri
3. The Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam
4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
5. The Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri +1 C.C. To MR.Babu Rangasamy, Advocate in SR.NO.52991 CRL.RC.No.651 of 2009 TS(CO) sd : 13/10/2015