Suthanthira Veeravasagan v. State Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 03.09.2025 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY Suthanthira Veeravasagan .. Petitioner

Versus

State, rep. by The Inspector of Police, Kilvelur Police Station, Hiruvarur District.

(Crime No.37 of 2018) .. Respondent Prayer : Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence made in Criminal Appeal No.17 of 2020, dated 10.03.2023 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.123 of 2018, dated 20.11.2020 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam.

For Petitioner : Mr.J.Jawahar 1/10

For Respondent : Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) 2/10

ORDER

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.A.No.17 of 2020, dated 10.03.2023. By the said judgment, the conviction and sentence, imposed by the Trial Court, was confirmed. The Trial Court namely, the Judicial Magistrate Court No.I, Nagapattinam, by its judgment, dated 20.11.2020 in C.C.No.123 of 2018, found the petitioner guilty for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo another three months Simple Imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.01.2018, at Keezhatheru Thiruppanchanam, the accused drove a lorry bearing registration No.TN30 AQ 4347 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the pedestrian who fell down and went inside the wheel and died out of the accident. On the strength of the said allegation, a case was registered in Crime No.37 of 2018. 3/10

P.W.11 took up the case for investigation and laid a Final Report proposing the accused guilty of the charge under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. Upon the case being taken on file and the accused being issued summons and questioned, the accused denied the allegation and stood trial. In order to bring home the charges, P.W.1 to P.W.11 were examined by the prosecution and Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-10 were marked. Upon being questioned about the material evidence on record under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the same. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court considered the case of the prosecution and that of the accused and found the accused guilty of the offence and sentenced as above. The Appellate Court, after re-appreciation of the evidence, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence.

3. Heard Mr.J.Jawahar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the 4/10

respondent.

4. Mr.J.Jawahar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, though started the arguments on merits, upon being questioned about by the Court, submitted that the accused is a first offender and is not involved in any other case. The learned Counsel would argue on the facts of the case by pointing out the rough sketch, the manner in which the accused is said to have happened, and would submit that at best, it could have been said that both the accused as well as the pedestrian contributed equally for the accident. Therefore, he would pray for leniency.

5. I had considered the submissions and also called for a report from the Probationary Officer. Today, the report is also placed before this Court.

6. I have considered the rough sketch and also the manner in which the accident is also said to have happened and that it is not in the extreme 5/10

left hand side in the edge of the road as claimed by the prosecution. It can be seen that there could have been some contribution by the deceased also with reference to the manner of the accident. In any event, this accident cannot be held to be an aggravated form of culpable rashness and at best, can be a momentary inattentiveness about the pedestrian, walking inwards from the left hand side of the road. It can also be seen that the accused has been facing the proceedings from the year 2018 till today. The compensation amount is also claimed by the accused and it is stated that an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has already been awarded. The Probationary Officer has also submitted a favourable report in respect of the petitioner.

7. For all the above, reasons, this is one extraordinary case where the Court can exercise the power to release the accused on probation. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is disposed of. The finding of guilt of the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, stands confirmed, but, instead of proceeding to sentence the 6/10

accused, after admonition, the accused is released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 on the following conditions:- (i) The accused shall execute a bond before the Trial Court within 30 days from the date of receipt of a web-copy of this order undertaking good behaviour for a period of one year, failing which, the accused has to appear before this Court and take the sentence.

(ii) It is made clear that the finding of guilt will not be a disqualification as enunciated under Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

03.09.2025 : no grs To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.

7/10

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Nagapattinam.

3. The Inspector of Police, Kilvelur Police Station, Hiruvarur District.

4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

8/10

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J., grs 9/10

03.09.2025 10/10