G.Jagadeeswaran v. State

BAIL SLIP---The Petitioner/Accused viz G.Jagadeeswaran wasdirected to be released on bail as per the order of this Courtdated 30.5.2006 in Crl.O.P.No.3406 of 2006 in Crl.RC.No.560 of2006.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:10.7.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.560 of 2006G.Jagadeeswaran.. Petitioner vs.State rep.byThe Inspector of Police,Vellakovil Police Station.... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against thejudgement passed in C.A.No.30 of 2006 dated 23.5.2006 passed by theAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III,Tharapuram, Erode, confirming the judgement dated 9.1.2006 passedby the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam. C.C.No.297/04.For Petitioner : Mr.RajasekaranFor Respondent : Mr.Hasan Md.Jinnah,APP. O R D E R Challenging and impugning the judgement dated 23.5.2006passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast TrackCourt No.III, Tharapuram, Erode, confirming the judgement dated9.1.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, 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 173Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC asagainst the accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trialwas conducted. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.12 wereexamined; Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On theaccused side, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 along with oneother witness as D.W.2 and documentary evidence was adduced on hisside.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused andimposed the following sentence. Case No.OffencePunishment imposedC.C.No.297 of 2004 279 IPCFine of Rs.500/- indefault, simpleimprisonment for twoweeks 304-A IPCRigourousimprisonment for sixmonths, and fine ofRs.3000/-, indefault, three monthsS.I.(d) As against which, C.A.No.30 of 2006 was filed before theJudicial Magistrate, Kangayam, Erode District, which Courtconfirmed in toto the conviction recorded and sentence imposed bythe lower Court.(e) Impugning and challenging the judgements of both theCourts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds, thenitty-gritty of them would run thus:-Both the Courts below failed to take into consideration thefact that the testimony of the alleged eye witness, namely, P.W.1does not go hand in hand with the sketch drawn by the I.O. P.W.1and P.W.2 are the relatives of the deceased and hence, theirevidence should not have been believed by the Courts below. Theevidence of D.W.2 was ignored unjustifiably. Accordingly, therevision petitioner prays for setting aside the order of theCourts below.3. Heard both sides.4. The point for consideration is as to whether the Courtsbelow were perverse in appreciating the evidence without applyingthe law in proper perspective even though there was no realeyewitness to the occurrence.5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by inviting theattention of this Court to the various portions of the evidence,would develop his argument to the effect that this is a case inwhich the accident occurred while the driver of the bus was drivingthe vehicle from East to West direction along the road cobncerned https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in a rash and negligent manner and dashed as against themotorcyclist, who was coming from West to East and that after theaccident, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus, but he couldonly stop it at a long distance away from the accident and this isindicative of the driver's rash and negligence in driving thevehicle, without caring for the safety of the other road users.6. At this juncture, it is worthwhile to narrate pithily andprecisely, the case of the prosecution:On 24.9.2004 at about 19.00 hours, the deceased motorcyclistwas driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.T.N.33 T 0664from West to East along the Vellakovil to Kangayam East-West MainRoad, Olapalayam near Mottakadu Pirivu. At that time, theoffending bus bearing registration No.T.N.38 N 0810 came in theopposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed asagainst the motorcyclist and caused his death and only after halffurlong from the place of accident, the offending vehicle came to ahalt.7. Both the Courts below believed the evidence of P.W.1 andP.W.2, who were the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and there isnothing to indicate and display that their evidence is a taintedone or fraught with falsity. Simply because P.W.1 was related tothe deceased, there is no presumption that his evidence should bediscarded. The law in that connection is well settled and noelaboration in this regard is required. Ex.P6-the Motor VehicleInspection Report furnished by the Motor Vehicle Inspector-P.W.11-the Inspector of Police, would prove that the accident might nothave been due to any mechanical defect in the offending vehicle.As such, this evidence torpedoed the evidence of D.W.1-the accusedthat the bus allegedly could not be stopped at the spot ofaccident, because, the motorcycle got underneath the bus andprevented the break getting operated effectively. D.W.1 himselfwould depose and detail that he was negotiating along the road byadhering to his left side and at the place of accident, the roadwas slightly curve and hence, he was moving slowly. If that be so,then the accident would not have happened in the manner narrated bythe prosecution and the offending bus would not have got stoppedhalf a furlong away from the place of accident. P.W.2 would try tosupport the defence by stating as though the deceased motorcyclistwas trying to cross the road in front of the bus and that he metwith the accident. 8. The evidence of D.W.2 as well as D.W.1 do not inspireconfidence in the mind of the Court for the reason that the placeof accident was shown as the Northern portion of the East to Westroad, which means, the bus driver should not have gone to theNorthern portion of the East to West road while he was proceedingfrom East to West.9. Whereas, the motorcyclist, who was coming from West to East https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was expected to be on the Northern portion of the road and actuallyhe was proceeding accordingly. Hence, it is clear that it was thedriver of the bus, who was at fault. Both the Courts belowcorrectly appreciating the evidence on record, arrived at thefactual finding, warranting no interference, as there is noperversity or non application of law in interpreting the evidence.10. Regarding the sentence, portion is concerned, the trialCourt awarded six months imprisonment for the offence under Section304-A IPC. 11. 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 shouldhave 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)12. 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. 13.Taking into consideration the fact that the accused was 28years old, at the time of accident, so to say a man of young age, Iam of the view that the sentence could be reduced to three monthssimple imprisonment, leaving intact the fine imposed. 14. 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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.III, Tharapuram, Erode.2. -do- Thro The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.3.The Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam.4.-do- Thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode.5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.7. The Inspector of Police, Vellakovil Police Station.8. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. Crl.R.C.No.560 of 2006KLT {CO}TP/20.7.2009.