Karuppaiya v. The Inspector Of Police

Bail Slip The Petitioner/Accused namely Karuppaiya, S/o.Periyasamy was directed to release on bail vide order dated 31/07/2013 made in Crl.MP.No.1/2013 in Crl.RC.No.960/2013,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 19.09.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN Crl.R.C.No.960 of 2013 Karuppaiya S/o.Periyasamy

...Petitioner/Accused

Vs.

State by the Inspector of Police Erode North Police Station, Cr.No.319/2007

...Respondent/Complainant

This Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure to set aside the Judgment dated 24.01.2013 made in C.A.No.177 of 2012 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge of Erode District, Erode by confirming the Judgment dated 20/06/2012 made in C.C.No.292 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Marudhachalamurthy For Respondent : Mr.R.Ravichandran Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)

O R D E R

The Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the revision petitioner to set aside the Judgment dated 24.01.2013 made in C.A.No.177 of 2012 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge of Erode District, Erode by confirming the Judgment dated 07.03.2011 made in C.C.No.292 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.05.2007, at about 5.00 pm, one Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy drove his TVS 50 motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 33 M 7391 on the backside of Erode, V.O.C.Park, i.e., the road namely ABT road from west to east on the left turn side. At the time the revision

petitioner/accused drove his van bearing registration No.TN 27 C 2929 in a rash and negligent manner without blowing any horn and dashed against the said Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy.

3. In view of the accident, the head of the said Kittu @ Krishnamoorthy was crashed and the brain was come out from the head and he died on the spot itself. The eyewitness is the P.W.1, one Jagadeesan lodged a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Erode North Police Station on the same day at about 06.15 pm. On the basis of the complaint a case was registered by the North Police Station in Crime No.319 of 2007 under Sections 279 and 304 (A) IPC.

4. During the course of investigation P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and through them Ex.P.1 to Ex.P8 were marked. On the basis of the evidence and the documents, the trial Court found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt. Thereby the trial Court found guilt of the accused under Section 279 and 304(A) IPC and convicted one month S.I for the offence under Section 279 IPC and imposed fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo further two weeks S.I. The trial Court also convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304(A) and sentenced to undergo one year S.I along with fine of Rs.5,000/- in default further one month S.I.

5. As against the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Erode in C.C.No.292 of 2007 dated 20.06.2012, the revision petitioner has preferred the Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.177 of 2012 before the First Additional Sessions Judge of Erode District, Erode.

6. After giving due opportunity to both sides, the learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Erode District, Erode dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence passed in C.A.No.177 of 2012 dated 24.01.2013.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the trial Court ought to have acquitted the revision petitioner as the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges framed against the petitioner beyond all reasonable doubt. It is pertinent to note that the deceased Krishnamoorthy was not having driving license to drive the two wheeler that has been admitted by the P.W.9, investigating Officer.

8. Further the vehicle of the revision petitioner hit upon the deceased vehicle by which the deceased was thrown out, the vehicle driven by the deceased should sustain damage on body of vehicle. P.W.4 Motor vehicle Inspector in Ex.P.3 does not find any damages to the vehicle of the revision petitioner, which disproves the case of the prosecution. There was a material contradiction crept in the cross examination of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the delayed in sending of 161(3) Cr.P.C., statements have not been properly explained. Hence he prayed to set aside the Judgment passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge of Erode District, Erode in C.A.No.177 of 2012 dated 24.01.2013.

9. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the rash and negligent on the part of the revision petitioner/accused was proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Admittedly, the road namely A.B.T Road is a one way road, in the above road only the vehicle are permitted from Eastern to Western side. In this case, the victim who drove his vehicle on the opposite direction i.e., from West to East, it is also admitted by the prosecution, thereby one cannot expect a person came in the opposite direction in a one way road, and the rash and negligent is only on the part of the victim and not on the par of the revision petitioner/accused. Of course, driving the vehicle in the opposite direction in a one way road is an offence.

But on the other hand, the revision petitioner who drove the van shall not drive the vehicle in a rash and negligence manner and to cause the death of a person when he came in one way road or two way road. On the cogent evidence of the prosecution it is proved that the accused drove the van in a rash and negligent manner that too on the righten side of the road and dashed against the victim. Hence the Criminal Revision Case may be dismissed.

10. Heard and perused the materials available on record.

11. Admittedly the accident took place on 17.05.2007 and the investigating Officer also deposed the same in cross examination. The road namely A.B.T road is one way and the vehicles can proceed from Eastern to Western side. Therefore proceeding from West to East is prohibited one. If it is so, the revision petitioner drove the two wheeler from West to East. Therefore, the rash and negligence is only on the part of the victim and not on the part of the revision petitioner/accused. Both the Courts below have failed to consider these aspects and acquitted the revision petitioner, which warrants interference of this Court.

12. In the result, Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the Judgment passed in C.A.No.177 of 2012 dated 24.01.2013 is set aside. Fine amount if any paid by the revision petitioner shall be refunded.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.

The I Additional Sessions Judge of Erode District, Erode.

2.

The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.

3.

The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Erode.

4.

-Do-Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.

5.

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

6. The Inspector of Police Erode North Police Station, Erode District.

Copy to : The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

+1 cc to M/s.R.Marudhachalamurthy,Advocate Sr.No. 65381 Crl.R.C.No.960 of 2013 RS-1(C.O.) AKM/16.08.19/ 4P-8C /