Jesudurai v. State, rep. by The Inspector of Police,Traffic Investigation,J3, Guildy Police Station,Chennai

BAIL SLIPThe Petitioner/Accused viz., Jesudurai S/o. SoosaiMariyan was directed to be released on bail as per order of thisCourt dated 05.01.2006 made in Crl.M.P.No.56/06 in Crl.R.C.No.12/2006on the file of this Court.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:16.6.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.12 of 2006andCrl.M.P.No.56 of 2006Jesudurai ..Petitioner/Accusedvs.State, rep.byThe Inspector of Police,Traffic Investigation,J3, Guildy Police Station,Chennai...Respondent/Complainant Prayer: Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe judgement dated 29.12.2005 passed by the learned AdditionalDistrict cum Sessions Judge, (IV Fast Track Court) Chennai, inCr.A.No.203 of 2005 confirming the conviction and sentence imposed inthe order dated 12.4.2005 passed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate,Saidapet, in C.C.No.6687 of 2003.For Petitioner : No appearanceFor Respondent : Mr.Hasan Md.Jinnah O R D E R Animadverting upon the the judgement dated 29.12.2005 passedby the learned Additional District cum Sessions Judge (IV Fast TrackCourt) in Cr.A.No.203 of 2005 confirming the conviction and sentenceimposed by the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, in C.C.No.6687of 2003, dated 12.4.2005, this criminal revision case is focussed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. Compendiously and concisely, the case of the revisionpetitioner, as stood exposited from the records could be narratedthus:On 22.2.2003, at about 11.45 p.m., the offending vehicle, viz.,Qualis Car, bearing Registration No.2626, which was driven by theaccused in a rash and negligent manner, was negotiating alongBrindavan Street, West Mambalam, from West to East and dashed againsta cycle, which was ridden by Palanivelu by having his colleagueSenthilkumar as pillion rider, from behind and caused fatal injury toSenthilkumar and simple injuries to Palanivelu. The lower Courtconvicted the accused for the offence under Sections 304(A), 337 IPCand Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, based on the evidence ofP.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 and also placing reliance on the medical evidenceof Doctors P.Ws.6 and 7 and other documents and imposed the followingsentences:(i) to undergo one month rigourous imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 337IPC;(ii) to undergo rigourous imprisonment for 6 monthsand to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- for the offence underSection 304(A) IPC;(iii) to undergo one month rigourous imprisonment andto pay a fine of Rs.250/- for the offence under Section 184of M.V.Act.3. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the convictionrecorded and sentence imposed by the Court below, this revision isfocussed on the main ground that the identity of the accused as theperson, who caused the accident by driving the vehicle was notestablished before the lower Court, nevertheless the trial Courtsimply took the prosecution case for gospel truth and recordedconviction as against the accused and imposed the sentencesunjustifiably and those alleged eye witnesses were not real eyewitnesses, nonetheless the lower Court simply treated them as eyewitnesses.4. The point for consideration is as to whether the finding ofthe lower Court is perverse in allegedly treating the non-eyewitnesses as eye witnesses and giving the finding as though theidentity of the accused was established. Despite opportunitiesgiven, no one represented the revision petitioner.5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would invite theattention of this Court to the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 anddevelop his argument to the effect that copiously and cogently, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ convincingly and truthfully those witnesses, without anyembellishment detailed and delineated the occurrence. 6. The contention of the revision petitioner that the identityof the accused as the person who drove the offending vehicle has notbeen fortified or buttressed by any preponderance of probabilities.I am fully aware of the fact that the accused need not prove his pleabeyond reasonable doubt the defence and at least if the accused iscapable of creating a picture in the mind of the Court in favour ofthe defence theory based on preponderance of probabilities then thatwould be sufficient for acquittal. But in this case, the very riderof the cycle, involved in the accident, categorically deposed to theeffect that he was the person who was riding the cycle by having thedeceased as the pillion rider along the said road and at that time,the offending vehicle driven by the accused came from behind in arash and negligent manner and dashed against his cycle and caused thefatal accident. The other witnesses P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 5 alsocorroborated the evidence of P.W.1. No doubt P.W.5 while furnishingthe Registration number of the vehicle, instead of specifying as 2626stated as 2676, which the trial Court correctly understood, as amere error and pointed out that it was nothing but lapse lingua onthe part of P.W.5 in furnishing that offending vehicle'sregistration number as 2676 instead of 2626. The defendant cannottry to make a mountain out of mole hill. 7. It is the duty of the criminal Court to see the reality andarrive at the conclusion, which the lower Court correctly did,warranting no interference by this Court, while exercising itsrevisional jurisdiction. Unless there is perversity or non-exerciseof jurisdiction or wrong exercise of jurisdiction on the part of thetrial Court, the question of invoking the revisional jurisdiction bythis Court does not arise. Here in this case, even the scanning ofthe evidence, which this Court is not expected to do in detail, wouldexemplify and demonstrate, display and convey that the lower Courtcorrectly recorded the finding of guilt as against the accused,warranting no interference by this Court. 8. However, I could see one technical error on the part of thelower Court in imposing the sentence in respect of the offence underSection 184 of Motor Vehicles Act also. Having imposed substantivesentences of imprisonment as well as fine for the offence underSection 304(A) IPC relating to the death of Senthilkumar and underSection 337 IPC relating to the injuries sustained by Palanivelu, thelower Court even though was justified in recording the finding ofguilty under section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, was not justifiedin imposing substantive sentence as well as fine of Rs.250/-, as itis redundant and falls foul of Section 71 of the Indian Penal Code,as it is quite obvious and axiomatic. Hence, the substantialsentence of imprisonment and the finding imposed under Section 184 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act alone is set aside and the rest of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ findings, convictions and sentences, including the sentence of fineimposed against the accused are confirmed. 9. In the result, the criminal revision case is partly allowed.Since the revision petitioner is not present, the lower Court isdirected to issue warrant to the revision petitioner on receipt of acopy of this order, so as to secure his presence and commit him tojail in order to undergo the sentence, if he has not alreadyundergone. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.The fine of Rs.250/- (Two hundred and fifty) relates to the offenceunder Section 184 of M.V.Act, if collected already, the same shall bereturned by the lower Court to the accused.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarMskTo1. The Additional District cum Sessions Judge, (IV Fast Track Court, Chennai.2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.3. The IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai.4. -do- Through The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai.5. The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, J3 Guindy Police Station, Chennai.6. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.7. The District Collector, Chennai.8. The Director General of Police, Mylapore, Chennai.9. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2006CK (CO)GSK 06.07.2009.