R.Radhakrishnan @ Velusamy v. The State

Bail SlipThe Appellant/Accused R.Radhakrishnan @ Velusamy was directed tobe released on bail as per the orders of this Court dt.20.1.2007 madein Crl.M.P.1/2007 in Crl.R.C.94/2007 on the file of this Court.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:15.07.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.94 of 2007R.Radhakrishnan @ Velusamy ... Petitioner/Appellant/Accusedvs.The StateRep. By Inspector of Police,Kinathukkadavu Police StationCoimbatore District. ... Respondent/Respondent/ ComplainantPrayer: Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. againstthe judgment passed in C.A.No.195 of 2006 by the Additional District& Sessions Judge, FTC No.II, Coimbatore dated 18.12.2006 confirmingthe judgment made in C.C.No.147 of 2002 by the Judicial MagistrateNo.1, Pollachi dated 10.04.2006.For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kalyana sundaramFor Respondent: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,G.A.(crl.side) O R D E RAnimadverting upon the judgment passed in C.A.No.195 of 2006by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC No.II, Coimbatoredated 18.12.2006 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.147 of 2002by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi dated 10.04.2006, thiscriminal revision is focussed.2.Pithily and precisely, compendiously and concisely therelevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for thedisposal of this revision would run thus:(a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 ofCr.P.C. as against the accused for the offence under Sections 279,337 (4 counts), 304(a) (3 counts) and 338IPC. (b) Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the trial was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ conducted. During trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 18 wereexamined and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. No oral or documentaryevidence was adduced on the side of the defendant.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court acquitted the accused andrecorded the conviction and imposed the sentence. Being aggrieved byand dissatisfied with the conviction recorded and the sentenceimposed by the trial Court, the appeal was filed on various groundsfor nothing but to be dismissed confirming the judgment of the lowerCourt.3. Impugning and challenging the relevant facts and the sentenceimposed by both the Courts below, this revision is focussed onvarious grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:Both the Courts below failed to take into account the fact thatthe left side front wheel of the jeep got separated from the vehicleand that alone caused the accident and that there was no rash andnegligent driving on the part of the accused at all. The alleged eyewitnesses on the prosecution side did not speak anything about therash and negligent driving of the vehicle by P.W.1. As such, thejudgments of both the Courts below have to be set aside.4. The point for consideration is as to whether there is anyperversity or non-application of law in recording the conviction asagainst the accused. The learned counsel for the revisionpetitioner placing reliance on the grounds of revision would develophis argument to the effect that the left side wheel of the jeep gotseparated from the vehicle and that alone resulted in the accidentand none of the witnesses spoke about the rash and negligent drivingof the vehicle. Whereas, the learned Government Advocate (crl.side)by detailing and delineating the accident and inviting the attentionof this Court to the deposition of the eye witness, would develop hisargument to the effect that the witnesses who travelled in theoffended jeep cogently and coherently without any embellishmenthighlighted that despite they having instructed the driver not to berash and negligent in driving the jeep, he did choose to drive it soand caused the accident. 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submitthat it is an admitted fact that the driver himself is a neighbour ofthose witnesses and in order to help the aged lady who sustainedalready some fracture, he was taking her along with other relativesin that jeep and in that process alone, the axil got broken and theaccident occurred. However, the eye witnesses would coherently statethat it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeeponly, he was constrained to apply the brake suddenly which made thejeep to go helter-skelter to the left side of the road and thereby,it dashed as against a palm tree and because of that alone the leftside wheel got dislocated. The Motor Vehicles Inspector, P.W.8, withreference to Ex.P2 would state that only after the accident the wheelgot dislocated and it is not as though the wheel got separated fromthe vehicle even before the accident. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submitthat in the F.I.R. it is found stated as though the driver drove thevehicle without seeing the vehicle coming in the opposite direction,that he applied the brake and that in that process alone the accidentoccurred, but P.W.1, the very same FIR complainant in his depositionduring cross examination would state that no vehicle came in theopposite direction.7. At this juncture, I would like to point out that theexpression used in the FIR would reveal that the driver of thevehicle, namely the accused, was rash and negligent in driving thevehicle, without concentrating on the traffic and the on comingvehicles coming in the opposite direction and in the FIR he neverstated that a particular vehicle was coming just in front of thevehicle. 8. At this juncture, my mind is redolent and reminiscent of thefollowing decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:(i) 2002(6) SCC 650- Bindeshwari Prasad Singh alias B.P.Singhand Others vs. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and another; an excerptfrom it would run thus:"13. The instant case is not one where any suchillegality was committed by the trial court. In theabsence of any legal infirmity either in the procedure orin the conduct of the trial, there was no justificationfor the High Court to interfere in exercise of itsrevisional jurisdiction. It has repeatedly been held thatthe High Court should not reappreciate the evidence toreach a finding different from the trial court. In theabsence of manifest illegality resulting in gravemiscarriage of justice, exercise of revisionaljurisdiction in such cases is not warranted.14. We are, therefore, satisfied that the High Courtwas not justified in interfering with the order ofacquittal in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction atthe instance of the informant. It may be that the HighCourt on appreciation of the evidence on record may reacha conclusion different from that of the trial court. Butthat by itself is no justification for exercise ofrevisional jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure against a judgment of acquittal. Wecannot say that the judgment of the trial court in theinstant case was perverse. No defect of procedure has beenpointed out. There was also no improper acceptance orrejection of evidence nor was there any defect ofprocedure or illegality in the conduct of the trialvitiating the trial itself. (ii) 2005 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 276 – Sathyajit Banerjee andOthers vs. State of W.B.and others, an excerpt from it would runthus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "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 High Courtfinds defect of procedure or manifest error of law resultingin flagrant miscarriage of justice."A bare perusal of the said decisions would demonstrate that therevisional court is not expected to interfere with the finding givenby both the courts below and if there is no perversity or non-application of law on the part of both the courts below, the questionof revisional court interfering with the findings would arise. 9. Both the Courts below understanding the evidence correctlyarrived at a factual finding warranting no interference by thisCourt. As such, I could see no infirmity in the finding of fact bythe Courts below relating to the offence committed by the accused.Relating to sentence is concerned, altogether the accused is made toundergo only six months imprisonment. 10. At this juncture, my mind is redolent and reminiscent of thefollowing decision of the Hon'ble Apex 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 thedeath of four persons, the learned Single Judgeshould not have interfered with the sentence imposedby the Court below. It may create and set anunhealthy precedent and send wrong signals to thesubordinate courts which have to deal with severalsuch accident cases. If the accused are found guiltyof rash and negligent driving, courts have to be onguard to ensure that they do not escape the clutchesof law very lightly. The sentence imposed by thecourts should have deterrent effect on potentialwrong-doers and it should commensurate with theseriousness of the offence. Of course, the Courtsare given discretion in the matter of sentence totake stock of the wide and varying range of factsthat might be relevant for fixing the quantum ofsentence, but the discretion shall be exercised withdue regard to larger interest of the society and itis needless to add that passing of sentence on theoffender is probably the most public face of thecriminal justice system."In the wake of the above decision, if the sentence imposed isconsidered, it is quite obvious and axiomatic that by no stretch ofimagination it could be stated to be excessive, and that in this casethree deaths are involved apart from grievous injuries and simple https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ injuries to several persons. In the result, I could see no merit inthe revision petition and it is dismissed.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrargmsTo1. The Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi2.-do- Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Coimbatore.3. The Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC No.II,Coimbatore.4.-do- Through The Principal Sessions Judge,Coimbatore.5. The Public Prosecutor, Madras.6. The Inspector of Police,Kinathukkadavu Police StationCoimbatore District. 7.The Section Officer,Crl.Section, High Court,Madras.+1cc to Mr.K.Kalyanasundaram, Advocate Sr 31757KJI(CO)km/14.8.Crl.R.C.No.94 of 2007