Ravi v. State

Bail SlipThe Petitioner/Accused viz., Ravi was directed to be releasedon bail as per order of this Court dated 28.11.2006 made inCrl.M.P.No.1 of 2006 in Crl.R.C.No.1358/2006.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:14.7.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.1358 of 2006Ravi... Petitionervs.State, rep.by Inspector of Police,Kamanayakempalayam Police Station,Coimbatore,Coimbatore District.... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against thejudgement dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Additional District andSessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore, in C.A.No.496of 2005 confirming the judgment dated 25.10.2005 passed by theDistrict Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, CoimbatoreDistrict in C.C.No.168 of 2002.For Petitioner : Mr.C.AnandaramaniFor Respondent : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,G.A. O R D E R Challenging and impugning the judgement dated 22.11.2006passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast TrackCourt No.II), Coimbatore, in C.A.No.496 of 2005 confirming thejudgment dated 25.10.2005 passed by the District Munsif cumJudicial Magistrate, Palladam, in C.C.No.168 of 2002, this criminalrevision case is focussed.2. Compendiously and concisely, the facts which are absolutelynecessary and germane for the disposal of this case would runthus:-The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 ofCr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC asagainst the accused on the ground that on 24.4.2002, at about 20.00hours, the van bearing registration No.39-B-5319 was driven by theaccused in a rash and negligent manner along Nal Road, Cencheri, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Kamanayakapalayam, from North to South and dashed as against thedeceased Karuppusamy grounder, who was standing near the bus stop.Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. (b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.9 wereexamined; Exs.P1 to P7 were marked. On the accused side, no oralor documentary evidence was adduced.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused andimposed the following sentence. Case No.OffencePunishment imposedC.C.No.168 of 2002 279 IPCThree monthsrigourousimprisonment and fineof Rs.500/-, indefault, one monthrigourousimprisonment. 304-A IPCRigourousimprisonment for sixmonths, and fine ofRs.4000/-, indefault, one monthrigourousimprisonment.(d) As against which, C.A.No.496 of 2005 was filed before theAdditional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.II),Coimbatore, which Court confirmed in toto the conviction recordedand sentence imposed by the lower Court.3. Impugning and challenging the judgements of both the Courtsbelow, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the nitty-gritty of them would run thus:-There is no coherence between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2on the one side and P.W.7-the Motor Vehicle Inspector on the otherside. There are also contradictions in the evidence of the allegedeyewitnesses. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prays forsetting aside the judgement of the lower Court and for acquittingthe accused.4. Heard both sides.5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is anyperversity or illegality in interpreting the evidence and recordingthe conviction and imposing the sentence.6. A plain reading of the judgement of the lower Court,coupled with the records available, it is clear that P.W.1 andP.W.2 are the eyewitness to the occurrence, who supported the case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the prosecution. The deceased, Karuppusamy Gounder, at therelevant time of the accident was only a by-stander near the busstop and in such a case, by no stretch of imagination, it could beheld that the driver of the van was justified in knocking him down.In fact, after the accident, the van got stopped only on the mudportion of the road, where the deceased's dead body was lying. Infact, P.W.1 himself is a by-stander along with Karuppusamy Gounderand hence, his deposition cannot be doubted. P.W.2-Rathinasamy alsowould bear out the testimony of P.W.1. Both the Courts below,taking into consideration the relevant facts, arrived at theconclusion.7. The opinion of the Motor Vehicle Inspector that theoffending vehicle got damaged on its right side would not in anyway falsify the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The fact that thefront right side indicator glass of the van got broken did notfalsify the testimony of the eyewitness that the left side of thevan dashed as against the deceased. 8. In the process of accident, various things might havehappened and simply because the right side indicator glass wasfound broken in the offending vehicle, one cannot jump to theconclusion that the driver did not cause the accident at all. Thefirst and foremost crucial question arises in this case is as towhat necessitated the offending vehicle's driver to dash as againstthe by-stander. Even during examination under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C.,the accused did not choose to whisper anything. 9. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent ofthe provisions as contained in Section 105 of the Indian EvidenceAct, which would contemplate that when there is any fact within theexclusive knowledge of the accused, it is for him to disclose.But, in this case, he had not chosen to utter out anything.10. At this juncture, I would like to call up and recollectthe following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court:(i) 2002 Supreme court cases (crl) 1448 - Bindeshwari PrasadSingh alias B.P.Singh and Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand)and another; an excerpt from it would run thus:"13. The instant case is not one where any such illegalitywas committed by the trial court. In the absence of anylegal infirmity either in the procedure or in the conduct ofthe trial, there was no justification for the High Court tointerfere in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. It hasrepeatedly been held that the High Court should notreappreciate the evidence to reach a finding different fromthe trial court. In the absence of manifest illegalityresulting in grave miscarriage of justice, exercise ofrevisional jurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Court was notjustified in interfering with the order of acquittal in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ exercise of its revisional jurisdiction at the instance ofthe informant. It may be that the High Court on appreciationof the evidence on record may reach a conclusion differentfrom that of the trial court. But that by itself is nojustification for exercise of revisional jurisdiction underSection 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against ajudgment of acquittal. We cannot say that the judgment ofthe trial court in the instant case was perverse. No defectof procedure has been pointed out. There was also noimproper acceptance or rejection of evidence nor was thereany defect of procedure or illegality in the conduct of thetrial vitiating the trial itself. (ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 – Sathyajit Banerjeeand Others vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it wouldrun thus:"22. The cases cited by the learned counsel show thesettled legal position that the revisional jurisdiction, atthe instance of the complainant, has to be exercised by theHigh Court only in very exceptional cases where the HighCourt finds defect of procedure or manifest error of lawresulting in flagrant miscarriage of justice."11. A bare perusal of those decisions would exemplify anddemonstrate that the High Court, while exercising its revisionaljurisdiction is not expected to interfere with the finding of factarrived at by both the Courts below simply because one other viewis possible or a different view could be taken. 12. Both the Courts below correctly appreciating the evidenceon record, arrived at the factual finding, warranting nointerference, and there is no perversity or non application of lawin interpreting the evidence.13. Regarding the sentence portion is concerned, the trialCourt awarded six months rigourous imprisonment for the offenceunder Section 304-A IPC. 14. At this juncture, I would like to cite the followingdecision of the Honourable Supreme Court: 2002(2) SUPREME 500 – STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SHARANAPPABASNAGOUDA AREGOUDAR, an excerpt from it would run thus:"6. We are of the view that having regard to theserious nature of the accident, which resulted in the deathof four persons, the learned Single Judge should not haveinterfered with the sentence imposed by the Court below. Itmay create and set an unhealthy precedent and send wrongsignals to the subordinate courts which have to deal withseveral such accident cases. If the accused are foundguilty of rash and negligent driving, courts have to be onguard to ensure that they do not escape the clutches of lawvery lightly. The sentence imposed by the courts should https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ have deterrent effect on potential wrong-doers and it shouldcommensurate with the seriousness of the offence. Ofcourse, the Courts are given discretion in the matter ofsentence to take stock of the wide and varying range offacts that might be relevant for fixing the quantum ofsentence, but the discretion shall be exercised with dueregard to larger interest of the society and it is needlessto add that passing of sentence on the offender is probablythe most public face of the criminal justice system."(emphasis supplied)15. It is therefore clear that the Honourable Apex Courtdeprecated the practice of some of the Courts awarding lenientpunishment in accident cases involving Section 304-A IPC. 16.However, taking into consideration the fact that theaccused was 31 years old, at the time of accident, so to say a manof young age, I am of the view that the sentence could be reducedto three months simple imprisonment, leaving intact the fineimposed. 17. Similarly, for the offence under Section 279 IPC also, Iwould like to modify the sentence of three month rigourousimprisonment imposed by the trial Court to one of three monthssimple imprisonment and accordingly, the same is converted. I madeit clear that the sentences imposed under both the Sections shallrun concurrently.18. In the result, the criminal revision case is partlyallowed. The lower Court, on receipt of a copy of this order, isdirected to issue warrant, to secure the presence of the revisionpetitioner and commit him to jail so as to make him to undergo thesentence imposed in this revision, if he has not already undergone.Any pre-trial detention is there, as per Section 428 of Cr.P.C.,the same could be set off proportionately. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarMskTo1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge(Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2. -do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.3. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Palladam,4. -do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore.5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.7. The Inspector of Police,Kamanayakempalayam Police Station,Coimbatore.8. The Section Officer,Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.1 cc To Mr.C.Anandkumar, Advocate, SR.31131.Crl.R.C.No.1358 of 2006GGK(CO)RVL 10.08.2009