✦ High Court of India · 05 Dec 2024

High Court · 2024

Case Details High Court of India · 05 Dec 2024

Court

High Court of India

Decided

05 Dec 2024

Bench

PRINCIPAL DISTRICT SESSIONS

Length

1,434 words

Acts & Sections

Code of Criminal Procedure §397 Indian Penal Code §279 Indian Penal Code §337 Indian Penal Code §337 and 304 Indian Penal Code

Crl.RC No.411 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 05.12.2024CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHANCrl.R.C.No.411 of 2023and Crl.M.P.No.3118 of 2023Dinesh ... Petitioner/accusedVs.State byThe Inspector of Police,Vellore Taluk Police Station,Vellore District.(Cr.No.430 of 2014)… Respondent /ComplainantPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records in C.A.No.60 of 2021 dated 15.11.2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Vellore, Vellore District, confirming the order passed in C.C.No.657 of 2014 dated 05.10.2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore and acquit the revision petitioner from all the charges. For Petitioner: Mr.K.Gandhi KumarFor Respondent: Dr.C.E.Pratap Government Advocate (Crl.Side)ORDERThe Criminal Revision Case has been filed challenging the judgment dated 15.11.2022 made in Crl.A.No.60 of 2021 on the file of Page No.1 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC No.411 of 2023the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Vellore, Vellore District , confirming the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore in C.C.No.657 of 2014 dated 05.10.2021.2. It is the case of the prosecution that the petitioner was the driver of Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus bearing Regn.No.TN32 N 3674; that on 07.10.2014 at about 11.00p.m., he was driving on the Arni-Vellore road in the newly constructed bridge near Nelvoy village; and that he had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and when he crossed the bridge, there was a heavy jerk inside the bus, as a result of which, the passengers who were seated on the back seats of the bus were thrown out of their seats and witnesses PW1 to PW4 sustained simple injuries and the deceased sustained head injury and died at the hospital later. 3. On the complaint given by one of the victims [PW1], a case was registered in Cr.No.430 of 2014 against the petitioner/accused for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the IPCPage No.2 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC No.411 of 20234. The case was investigated by PW11 and a final report was filed against the petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337 (4 counts) and 304(A) of the IPC. The prosecution had examined 11 witnesses as PW1 to PW11 and marked 15 documents viz., Ex.P1 to Ex.P15.5. The trial Court after examining all the witnesses found the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 337 (4 counts) and 304(A) of the IPC and convicted and sentenced him as follows:Offence under SectionSentence imposed337 IPC (4 counts) To pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default to undergo SI for one month for each count.304(A) IPCTo undergo RI for six months6. The appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.7. Heard Mr.K.Gandhi Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused and Mr.C.E.Pratap, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), appearing for the respondent/State.Page No.3 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC No.411 of 20238. (i) The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that both the Courts below had ignored certain vital evidences which would show that the petitioner/accused cannot be guilty of either rashness or negligence; that there was a height difference between the bridge and the road to an extent of one foot and stones which were placed to fill up the gap, were displaced due to rain and since it was night, the petitioner could not assess the height difference; and that therefore, the judgments of the Courts below are liable to be set aside. (ii) The learned counsel also relied upon the evidence of the investigating officer admitting the difference in the height and also the rough sketch [Ex.P12] which confirms the said fact.9. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) per contra submitted that the eyewitnesses injured viz., PW1 to PW3 have stated that because of the impact, all of them were thrown out of their seats and sustained injuries; that the principle of res ipsa loquitur has to be applied in this case considering the nature of injuries sustained by the witnesses and the deceased; and that the Courts below had correctly convicted the petitioner for the offences under Sections 337 and 304 (A) of the IPC and Page No.4 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC No.411 of 2023prayed for dismissal of the revision.10. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the evidence on record.11. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. PW1 to PW3 are the passengers who had travelled in the bus and injured due to the accident. PW4 and PW5 are the son-in-law and brother-in-law of the deceased respectively. PW6 and PW7 are mahazar witnesses. PW8, the conductor who travelled in the bus, turned hostile. PW9 is the doctor, who treated the injured witnesses PW1 to PW3. PW10 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR and PW11 is the investigating officer.12. The case therefore rests on the evidence of PW1 to PW3 and that of PW11 and the documents filed on the side of the prosecution. PW11 had admitted in the cross examination that there was a height difference between the bridge and the road connecting the bridge. The relevant portion reads as follows:“.....rk;gtaplj;jpy; ghyk; fl;Lk; gzp ele;jJ vd;why; Page No.5 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC No.411 of 2023me;j ghyk; fl;oKof;fg;gl;L gad;ghl;oy; ,Ue;jJ/ rk;gtk; ele;jd;W kiH bghHpe;jjhf vdJ tprhuizapy; bjhpatpy;iy/ kiHapdhy; rhiy gs;sk;nkLfSld; ,Ue;jjhYk; thfdk; ntfj;jilapd; kPJ Vwp ,w';fpajhft[k; vdJ tprhuizpay; bjhpate;jJ vd;why; ntfj;jilapUe;jjhf bjhpatpy;iy/ rhiy Fz;Lk; FHpa[kpy;yhky; rkjskhfnt fhzg;gl;lJ vd;why; rhiya[k; ghyk; nrUkplj;jpYk; cauk; tpj;jpahrk; ,Ue;jJ/ rhiyapy; jz;zPu; nj';fpapUe;jjhy; ghyk; rw;Wk; caukhf ,Ue;jij mwpa KoahJ vd;why; rhiyapy; jz;zPu; nj';Ftjw;F tha;g;gpy;iy/ mjdhy; me;j cauk; kiwf;fg;gLtjw;Fk; tha;g;gpy;iy.....”13. Though the investigating officer had stated that the petitioner/accused could have anticipated the difference in height, the fact that there was a difference in height, is admitted by the investigating officer. The rough sketch [Ex.P12] confirms the fact that the height difference between the bridge and the road connecting the bridge is around one foot. PW1 in his deposition had admitted that the bus was driven by the petitioner/accused at a normal speed and that there was rain at the relevant point of time. The relevant portion reads as follows:“.....kiH bga;Jf;bfhz;L ,Ue;jjhy; gphpl;$^f;F fPnHapUf;Fk; gs;sk; bjhpatpy;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; mJ bjhpatpy;iy J}f;fp nghl;lgpwF jhd; bjhpa[k;/ Xl;Leu; rhjhuz ntfj;jpy; jhd; Xl;of;bfhz;L te;jhu; vd;why; ehu;kyhf Xl;of;bfhz;L te;jhu;////”Page No.6 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC No.411 of 202314. Similarly, PW2 had stated in his cross-examination as follows:“...Speed Breaker-f;F Kd;dhy; kiH bga;Jf;bfhz;L ,Ue;jJ/ md;W Xl;Leu; rhjhuz ntfj;jpy; jhd; Xl;of;bfhz;L te;jhu; vd;why; ehu;kyhf Xl;of;bfhz;L te;jhy; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ gs;sj;jpy; J}f;fpg;nghl;lJ////” 15. The occurrence took place at night hours. It is also admitted by the witnesses and the investigating officer that at the relevant point of time, it was raining. In order to bridge the gap between the road and the bridge, stones were placed and defence of the petitioner/accused that the stones were displaced due to rain and there was a huge height difference of one foot, is confirmed by the evidence of the investigating officer and the rough sketch. The witnesses, as stated above, have stated that the petitioner/accused had driven the vehicle at a normal speed and that it was only because of the fall from the bridge the witnesses and the deceased were thrown out of their seats and sustained injuries. 16. In the light of the above evidence, it can be seen that the petitioner cannot be attributed with either 'rashness' or 'negligence' and in any event, with 'gross negligence' or 'gross rashness', which is essential to prosecute a person for the offence under Section 304 (A) or 337 of the Page No.7 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC No.411 of 2023IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the judgment of conviction by the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.657 of 2014 dated 05.10.2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore and the judgment in C.A.No.60 of 2021 dated 15.11.2022 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge at Vellore, Vellore confirming the conviction and sentence, are set aside. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of the charges and is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded. Bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged. Consequently, the connected Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is closed.05.12.2024Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral citation: Yes/No.arsPage No.8 of 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.RC No.411 of 2023SUNDER MOHAN, J.arsTo1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore.2. The Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vellore.3. The Inspector of Police, Vellore Taluk Police Station, Vellore District.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.411 of 202305.12.2024Page No.9 of 9

Find similar cases Start drafting free

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments

More cases under Code of Criminal Procedure