High Court · 2025

CRL RC No. 623 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 06-11-2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHYCriminal Revision Case No. 623 of 20251. SrinivasanS/o.Devaraj, No.G-17, Pushba Nagar, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 098.PetitionerVs.The State by the Inspector of Police,D-6, Annna Square Police Station, Traffic Investigation Wing, Chennai. RespondentPRAYERThe Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 438 read with 442 of B.N.S.S. to call for the records and set aside the judgement passed by the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, in C.A.No.720 of 2023 dated 19.03.2025 by confirming the sentence and conviction imposed by the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in CC No.2633 of 2022 dated 20.10.2023.For Petitioner(s):Mr. S.SureshFor Respondent(s):Mr.S.Vinoth KumarGovernment Advocate (Crl.Side) https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 623 of 2025ORDERThis revision is filed as against judgement of the learned VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, dated 20.10.2023 made in C.C.No.2633 of 2022 and judgment of the learned XV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated 19.03.2025 made in Crl.A.No.720 of 2023. By the said judgement, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Section 279 of Indian Penal Code, and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo six months simple imprisonment and convicted the accused for an offence under Section 134 (a & b) and Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The Appellate Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.2. On 22.12.2021 at about 12.00 noon, P.W.1, Kamatchi, wife of the deceased person, came to the Police Station and stated that when her husband Gopi tried to cross the Gandhi Irwin Road, opposite to the Egmore Railway Station near Shanthi Sweets at about 02:00 p.m on 21.12.2021, a goods auto rickshaw hit him and he fell down and sustained grievous injury on his head and he was admitted to the Government General Hospital and was treated for head injuries by conducting a surgery in the Neuro Ward in his head and he is in a critical condition. Thereafter, further details as to the family and as to the fact that why the said Gopi went near the Egmore Railway Station and the facts as to the treatment given in the Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital were also https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 623 of 2025mentioned. On the strength of the said allegations, P.W.4 registered a case in Cr.No.302 of 2021 for alleged offence under Sections 279, 338, 134 (a & b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act and took up the case for investigation and after completion of the investigation, laid a final report finding the accused guilty of the aforementioned offences. The case was taken on file as C.C.No. 2633 of 2022. Upon issue of summons and furnishing of copies and questioning, the accused denied the imputations and stood trial. 3. In order to bring home the charges, on behalf the prosecution, the said Kamatchi, the wife of the deceased person, who lodged a complaint, was examined as P.W.1. The eyewitness to the accident, one Sivaraj, was examined as P.W. 2. Another hearsay witness, a friend of the deceased, who heard about the incident and reported about the other facts, was examined as P.W.3. The investigating Officer was examined as P.W.4. The complaint was marked as Ex.P1. The F.I.R. was marked as Ex.P2, the Rough Sketch as Ex.P3, Observation Mahazar as Ex.P4, the Accident Register Copy as Ex.P5 and the Notice issued by the Motor Vehicle Inspector as Ex.P6 and Ex.P7 and the Inspection Report as Ex.P8. The Death Report was marked as Ex.P9 and the Inquest Report was marked as Ex.P10, the Postmortem Report was marked as Ex.P11 and the Alteration Report for altering the offence into one as Section 304(A) was marked as Ex.P12. The trial Court thereafter, considered the case of the prosecution and that of the accused. The trial Court found that in front of the Railway Station though there is a meridian, it was only an half a feet height https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 623 of 2025only to streamline the vehicles and it was not a preventive barricade for the pedestrians to cross the road, all the pedestrians used to cross the road from one end to the other end in spite of the said meridian. Therefore, in the absence of any prohibition and generally, in that place before the Railway Station, when all the pedestrians are crossing the road from one end of the road to the other, the accused failed to exercise the reasonable care expected of him and drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the deceased on the head and caused the accident and accordingly, found the accused guilty of the aforementioned offences and imposed sentence as aforementioned. Upon appeal by the accused, the appeal also came to be dismissed and hence, this revision is filed. 4. Heard Mr.S.Suresh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel would submit that the only evidence in this case is that of the P.W.2, who is an eyewitness to this case. The eyewitness has given a different account than that of the case of the prosecution and the rough sketch that is marked in this case depicts a totally different scenario. Apart from the same, even to conclude that the accident happened only on account of the negligence of the driver and not for any mechanical fault, not even the Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined and without examining the report ought not to have been given credence. It can be seen that the injury was only in the head and absolutely, no rash driving was alleged as against the accused. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 623 of 20255. Per contra, Mr. S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf respondent Police would submit that P.W.2 is the eyewitness to the case, who deposed about the accident. The injured suffered head injury and he died. The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court that the meridian in the place in question was only to streamline the flow of vehicles and was not a barricade for the pedestrians to cross. Therefore, when the pedestrians were crossing the road, the accused should have been careful enough and should have taken reasonable care expected of him and hence, the prosecution has proved the offence beyond any reasonable doubt.6. I have considered the rival submission made on either side and perused material records of the case.7. As per the case of the prosecution, as contained in the rough sketch, there is no centre meridian at all in the place, where the deceased was crossing the road. However, the same is not supported by the prosecution witness. Secondly, the place of accident is also marked as way beyond the crossing of the centre of the road and it can be seen that the goods auto driven by the accused is proceeding from the west to east on the opposite lane. If that is the case of the prosecution, the only eyewitness, who had spoken about the accident P.W.2. has deposed as follows:- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 623 of 2025“mg;nghJ vf;nkhh; uapy;nt !;nlrd; vjphpy; xU egh; rhiyia tre;jgtdpy; ,Ue;J uapy;nt !;nlrd; nehf;fp fle;J te;Jbfhz;oUe;jhh;/ mth; nuhl;oy; cs;s kj;jpa jLg;g[ fl;ilapy; Vwp ,w';f fhy; itj;jnghJ nkw;fpypUe;J fpHf;F nehf;fp te;j xU nyhL Ml;nlh mth; kPJ ,oj;Jtpl;lJ.”8. Thus, even assuming that the meridian was not for the purpose of barring the pedestrians and that the pedestrians were permitted to cross in the instant place, the place of the accident and the manner of the accident as depicted by the prosecution in their rough sketch totally differs from that as deposed by P.W.2. Therefore, the very case of the prosecution is doubtful. The prosecution should have categorically discharged its onus as to how the accident happened and the manner in which, it has happened. Further, P.W.2 also does not expressly allege any rashness of driving on the part of the accused. 9. With reference to the offence under Section 134 (a & b) read with 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it can be seen that P.W.2 himself has stated that the accused stoped the vehicle and was looking and the fact that immediately, an ambulance came and the patient was taken in the ambulance is also mentioned and he was also taken to the Police Station and as and when the complaint was given on the next day, the complaint was registered is also on record. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused hit and ran away, or without any reason, he failed to make arrangements to provide medical attendance or to inform the matter to the Police. It is common knowledge that normally, the Police https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 623 of 2025Personnel are very much present in the said junction and in this case, it is categorically mentioned that immediately, the victim was taken care of and the matter was also reported to the Police. The only thing is that there was a delay for the wife / informant to come from the Hospital to lodge a formal complaint for registering the F.I.R. Therefore, the offence under Section 124 (a & b) read with Section 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act is also not made out.10. In the absence thereof, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused caused the accident in a particular manner and that he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and did not exercise the reasonable care expected of him. In the absence of basic evidence relating to the same, the findings of the trial Court and that of the Appellate Court borders on perversity and accordingly, this is a fit case for interference in exercise of the revisionary jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court vide judgement dated 20.10.2023 in C.C.No.2633 of 2022 and as confirmed by the Appellate Court vide judgment dated 19.03.2025 in C.A.No.720 of 2023 are set aside. The accused is acquitted of all the charges. 06-11-2025ASISpeaking orderInternet:Yes https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 623 of 2025To1. The Inspector of Police,D-6, Annna Square Police Station, Traffic Investigation Wing, Chennai.2. The Public Prosecutor,High Court of Madras, Chennai. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL RC No. 623 of 2025D. BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.ASICrl.R.C. No. 623 of 2025 06-11-2025