K.Ravi v. State

Bail SlipThe Appellant/Accused Namelly K. Ravi S/o. Kuppusamy wasdirected to be release on bail as per the order of this Courtdated 31.8.2006 made in Crl Mp.1/06 in Crl Rc 977/06 on the file ofthis Court.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED:18.6.2009CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIACrl.R.C.No.977 of 2006andM.P.No.1 of 2006K.Ravi ... Petitioner vs.The Staterep.by Inspector of Police,Rasipuram Police Station,Namakkal District ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against theorder dated 23.8.2006, passed by the Additional District SessionsJudge/Fast Track Court, Namakkal in C.A.No.114 of 2005, confirmingthe judgment dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate,Rasipuram, Salem passed in C.C.No.416 of 2004.For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakumar for Mr.A.RamalingamFor Respondent : Mr.Hasan Md.Jinnah,A.P.P. O R D E R Challenging and impugning the order dated 23.8.2006, passedby the Additional District Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, inC.A.No.114 of 2005, confirming the judgement dated 16.11.2005passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Salem, in C.C.No.416of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts,which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of thiscivil revision petition would run thus:The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offences under Sections279, 338 (4 counts), 304(A) (two counts). After complying with theprocedures and formalities, trial was concluded. Ultimately, thetrial Court convicted the accused for the following offences andimposed the following sentence. Case No.OffencePunishment imposedC.C.416/2006279 IPCFine of Rs.600/- in-default, 2months R.I.338(4 counts) IPCFine of Rs.500/- to each countin de-fault, 1 month R.I. Foreach count304(A)(2 counts)IPC1 year R.I for each count andfine of Rs.3000/- for eachcount, in de-fault 3 monthsR.I.3. As against the conviction and sentence, C.A.No.114 of of2005 was preferred before the Additional District SessionsJudge/Fast Track Court, Namakkal, which Court partly allowed theappeal by modifying the sentence only, but confirming theconviction as under:Case No.OffencePunishment imposedC.C.416/2006279 IPCFine of Rs.600/- in-default, 2months R.I.338(4 counts) IPCFine of Rs.500/- to each countin de-fault, 1 month R.I. Foreach count304(A)(2 counts)IPCSix months R.I for each countand fine of Rs.3000/- for eachcount, in de-fault 3 monthsR.I.Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of the learnedSessions Judge, this revision is focussed on various grounds, thegist and kernal of them would run thus:-Even though no independent witness was examined on theside of the prosecution, nonetheless, the trial Courtbelieved the version of the driver of Maruthi Van and otherprosecution witnesses. The appellate Court also failed tosee that in the front portion of Omni Van only two personswere expected to sit, but including the driver three personswere sitting at the time of the accident. As per Ex.P12-thesketch, the bus was standing on the left side of the road,whereas, the Omni Van found hit on the tree. As such,Ex.P12 disproves the evidence of P.W.6. There is delay inlodging the FIR, as the accident took place at 3.45 p.m. on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

17.9.2003 but only at 7.00 p.m. the FIR was lodged at thepolice Station, which was only 4.00 K.M. away from the placeof occurrence. Accordingly, the revision petitioner praysfor setting aside the judgement of both the Courts below andfor acquitting the accused. 4. Heard both sides.5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is anyperversity or illegality in appreciating the evidence by the Courtsbelow in finding the revision petitioner herein guilty of theoffence under Sections 304(A) (2 counts), 338(4 counts) and 279IPC.6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accusedwould invite the attention of this Court to the relevant portion ofthe judgement of the lower Court and argue that P.W.5 was sittingon the right side of the driver and that itself would speak volumesas to how the driver was incapacitated from driving the Omni Vanfreely. 7. From the perusal of the judgement as well as the depositionof P.W.5, no such inference could be drawn that P.W.5 was sittingon the right side of the driver, so to say between the door and theright side of the driver. Hence, it is just and necessary toextract hereunder, the relevant portion of the deposition of P.W.5.@/ / / / / / / / / ehd; oiuth; rPl;ow;F gpd; gf;fk; tyJ gf;fk;cl;fhh;e;J ,Ue;njd;/ / / / / @8. Ofcourse, the Magistrate, in the judgement stated asthough P.W.5 was sitting at the right side of the driver in acryptic and confusing manner, which the revision petitioner cannotrely upon and try to make a mountain out of mole hill.9. The judgements of both the Courts below would display thatthere is application of mind on the part of both the Courts belowin scanning and appreciating the evidence and based on the cogentevidence of the witnesses on the prosecution side, they arrived atthe conclusion that the driver of the bus, namely, accused was atfault. 10. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitionertook pains to invite the attention of this Court to Ex.P.12-theSketch and thereby tried to highlight that if at all the occurrencehad taken place in the manner the prosecution witnesses narrated,certainly, there would have been no possibility of the Omni vanproceeding forward and thereafter coming in contact with the treeand that too, when the bus was standing on the left side of theroad. P.W.5 once again in his deposition spelt out that the driverof the Omni Van tried his level best to avoid the accident by evenmoving towards the mud portion of the road, even then the bus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dashed as against the right side of the Omni van and caused theaccident. The learned counsel for the petitioner would try to pointout that the other witnesses have not detailed and delineated theaccident in the manner P.W.5 had narrated. 11. It is a common or garden principle that witnesses may notbe unison in narrating the occurrence. P.W.5 in a detailed mannernarrated as to how the occurrence took place, whereas the otherwitnesses in a brief manner described the incident that the busdashed on the right side of the Omni van and caused it to moveforward to some extent and dash as against the tree.12. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent ofthe following well settled proposition of law that the revisionalCourt, while exercising its jurisdiction may not be justified inre-appreciating the evidence unless there is glaring perversity inthe judgement of both the Courts below in appreciating theevidence. 13. To the risk of repetition, without being tautalogous, Iwould like to point out that here in this case, both the courtsbelow took pains to advert to the various portions of the evidenceon the prosecution side and correctly held that the fault was onthe part of the driver of the bus. I even suo mottu considered asto whether had been any contributory negligence on the part of thedriver of the Omni Van because both the vehicles were coming on theopposite direction and the accident took place. No doubt, I amfully aware of the legal position that if there is head oncollision between two vehicles, contributory negligence ispossible.14. However, in this case, there is no head on collision, butthe bus come in contact with the right side of the Omni van andthereafter, the Omni van proceeded further and dashed as againstthe tree. More over, the driver of the Omni Van attempted to avoidthe accident, but because of the rash and negligent driving of theState Transport bus driver, the accident occurred. As such, Icould see no perversity or illegality on the part of both theCourts below.15. Coming to the aspect of substantive sentence, the trialCourt awarded one year imprisonment cumulatively, taking intoconsideration the fact that there occurred two deaths and fourgrievous injuries in the accident. The Sessions Judge, by taking aconsiderate and compassionate view reduced the substantive sentenceto six months. Over and above that, this Court cannot reduce thesentence ignoring the fact that there are two deaths and fourgrievous injuries resulted due to the accident. Hence, I could seeno merit in the revision and consequently, the same is dismissed.16. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed.The lower Court is directed to issue warrant to the revision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner on receipt of a copy of this order, so as to secure hispresence and commit him to jail in order to make him to undergo thesentence, if he had not already undergone. Consequently, connectedmiscellaneous petition is closed. MskSd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Additional District Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court2. The Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Salem 3. -do- Through,Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem.4. The Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal District.5. The Superintendent, Central prison, Coimbatore. 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court.Crl.R.C.No.977 of 2006VSN (CO)EU 23.7.2009.