High Court · 2025

Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 20.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023andCrl.M.P.No.19359 of 2023Suber ... PetitionerVersusState rep.byThe Inspector of Police,Taluk Police Station,Krishnagiri District.(Crime No.167 of 2017)... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., to set aside the conviction and sentence made in Criminal Appal No.42 of 2020 dated 13.10.2023 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri in confirming the Judgement made in C.C.No.52 of 2019 dated 28.09.2020 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.For Petitioner : Mr. V. Sakkarapani For Respondent : Mr. A. Gopinath,Government Advocate (Crl.Side)Page 1 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023O R D E RThis revision has been filed against the Judgement dated 13.10.2023, passed in Crl.A.No.42 of 2020 on the file of the Principal District Court, Krishnagiri, whereby the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.52 of 2019 dated 28.09.2020 by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, were confirmed.2.The case of the prosecution was that, on 19.03.2017, on the road from the new bus stand to Tolgate Krishnagiri, near TNSTC depot and opposite to Kanthan Painting Workshop, the petitioner was driving his vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-54-B-0880 from east to west, in a rash, negligent and reckless manner and dashed against one Munusamy, who was standing on the left-hand side of the road. Consequently, the said Munusamy sustained a head injury and died on the same day. On the basis of a complaint lodged, the respondent registered a First Information Report in Crime No.167 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC. After completion of investigation, a final report was filed, and the same was taken cognizance of by the Trial Court in C.C.No.52 of 2019. On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined and Exs.P1 to P7 documents were marked. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On perusal of Page 2 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC, and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment. He was also sentenced, for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, to undergo six months simple imprisonment and also awarded to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.42 of 2020 before the Court of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri. The Appellate Court, however, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Hence, the present revision has been filed before this Court.3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even according to the prosecution, the deceased, while crossing from the main road to the service road to reach the bus stop through a gap in the central median, was hit by the petitioner's vehicle and sustained a head injury, resulting in his death. It was contended that there was no pedestrian crossing at that place, and the deceased attempted to cross the road through a gap in the central median without noticing the traffic on both sides of the road. In fact, the cabin of the Page 3 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023petitioner's vehicle's did not hit the deceased; rather, while attempting to cross through central median, the deceased himself came into contact with the vehicle, due to which he sustained the head injury. The learned counsel further pointed out that there were discrepancies and contradictions in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses and that there is no evidence to prove that the petitioner was driving the vehicle in a rash or negligent manner. It was also emphasized that the incident occurred on a service road, where it is not possible to drive at a high speed. Without properly considering these facts and circumstances, the Courts below mechanically convicted the petitioner.4.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the eye-witness, was examined as P.W.2, had categorically stated that he had only dropped the deceased to go to the bus stop. While the deceased was standing on the left-hand side of the road, adjacent to the service road, and was about to cross towards the main road, the petitioner drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased. Consequently, the deceased sustained a head injury and died. The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the Courts below rightly convicted the petitioner and it does not warrant interference of this Court.Page 4 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 20235.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent, and also perused the materials available on record.6.A perusal of the records, it is seen that one of the witnesses, namely, P.W.2, had deposed as follows:“ ///// Rkhu; ,uz;L tUlj;jpw;F Kd;g[ fhiy 10/00 kzpastpy; ntiyia Koj;J tpl;L tPl;ow;F bry;tjw;fhf. mtiu ehd; vdJ ,Urf;fu thfdj;jpy; miHj;J te;J. mtiu ehd; muR ngUe;J og;nghtpw;F mUfpy; cs;s fe;jd; bgapz;o'; xu;f; c&hg;gpw;F mUfpy; mtiu ,wf;fptpl;L. m';nfna epd;W ghh;j;Jf;bfhz;oUe;njd;/ bjw;nf ,Ue;J tlf;nf bkapd; nuhl;il fle;Jtpl;L ru;tP!; nuhl;ow;F bry;Yk; nghJ. fpUc&;zfphp g!; epiyaj;jpypUe;J nlhy;nfl;il nehf;fp bghypnuh gpf;fg; thfdkhdJ ntfkhft[k;. m$hf;fpuijahft[k; tz;oia Xl;ote;J. v';fs; thl;r;nkd; Kdprhkp kPJ nkhjpaJ/ nkhjpajpy; mtu; fPnH tpGe;jij ehd; ghh;j;njd;/ gpd;g[ ehd; nuhl;il fle;J mog;gl;ltiu ghh;f;f nghFk; nghJ. mtuJ fGj;J jpUk;gpapUe;jJ/ mtUf;F K:f;F kw;Wk; thapy; ,uj;jk; Page 5 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023te;jJ/////”7.Thus, it is clear that after the deceased crossed the main road and entered the service road to reach the bus stop, he met the accident. Admittedly, the petitioner was driving his vehicle in a service road, i.e., adjacent to the main road. Between the service road and the main road, there is a barricade; however, in several places, the barricade had been removed to enable the pedestrians to cross the road. Through one such gap, the deceased attempted to cross from main road to the service road. Having already crossed the main road, he was standing in the central median at a place where no barricade existed. At that time, the cabin of the petitioner's vehicle passed by the deceased without contact, however, the body of the vehicle projected wider than the cabin size, the deceased, while proceeding to cross the service road without noticing the length of the petitioner's vehicle, he himself hit on the body of the vehicle and sustained a head injury. 8.As stated above, this is also evident from the cross-examination of P.W.2. The relevant portion of deposition of P.W.2 reads as follows:“ /////////// njrpa beL";rhiyf;Fk; rh;tP!; nuhl;ow;Fk; ,ilna bjhlu;r;rpahf nlhy;nfl; Page 6 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023tiu ,Uk;g[ jLg;g[ ntypa[s;sJ vd;why; rupjhd;/ mt;thW cs;s jLg;g[ ntypapy; fe;jd; bgapz;o'; xh;f;c&hg;gpw;F mUnf jLg;g[ ntyp cilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why;. mnj nghy; Rkhu; 10 ,l';fspy; jLg;g[ ntyp cilf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mt;thW cs;s rhiyapy; ghyj;jpypUe;J bgapz;o'; xh;f; c&hg; tiu ,ilapy; nuhl;il fle;J tu U tist[ vJt[k; ,y;iy/ //////// ”9.Thus, it is clear that the deceased while trying to cross the service road from the central median, came into contact with the body of the petitioner's vehicle. Further, on the service road, vehicles are permitted to ply on both sides. The petitioner drove is vehicle on the left-hand side of the service road, whereas the deceased was attempting to cross towards the right-hand side of the road. While doing so, through a gap in the median, the deceased, without noticing the petitioner's vehicle, he himself came into contact with the body of the vehicle and sustained a head injury. 10.That apart, after the accident, the vehicle was subjected to Motor Vehicle Inspection by a Motor Vehicle Inspector, and the Inspection Report was marked as Ex.P6. It shows that there was no damage to the cabin of the Page 7 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023petitioner's vehicle. Therefore, the accident did not occurred due to any negligence on the part of the driving of the petitioner. After making conversion of roads into four lane and six lane highways, such types of accidents have become common everywhere. Pedestrians without proper caution, cross the road at places not meant for crossing, often by removing the barricades fixed on the central median between the main road and the service road, and without looking on either side before crossing. In the present case, the deceased, without noticing the petitioner's vehicle, attempted to cross the service road and the deceased himself hit against the body of the petitioner's vehicle, thereby sustaining a head injury. If at all the petitioner's vehicle is directly dashed against the deceased, the deceased would have sustained multiple injuries all over his body. Subsequently, the Postmortem Report/Ex.P7 shows that the deceased sustained only a head injury, which caused his death. Therefore, there is absolutely no negligence on the part of the petitioner in the alleged accident. As there was no scope for high-speed driving on the service road, the findings of the Courts below are manifestly perverse and liable to be set aside.11.In criminal jurisprudence, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When two views are possible and the one favourable to the accused is equally plausible, the benefit of doubt must Page 8 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023necessarily go to the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden convincingly, and both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the infirmities in the prosecution case. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court in respect of all the charges against the petitioner, and confirmed by the Appellate Court, cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.12.In view of the above, the Judgement dated 13.10.2023 passed in C.A.No.42 of 2020 by the learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.52 of 2019 dated 28.09.2020 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Krishnagiri, are hereby set aside. The petitioner/accused is acquitted of all the charges for the offences under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.13.The petitioner/accused is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is otherwise required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. The bail bond, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. Page 9 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 202314.In the result, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also closed.20.08.2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking / Non-Speaking OrderNeutral Case Citation: Yes/NokltTo1. The learned Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri2. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Krishnagiri.3. The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Krishnagiri District.4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.Page 10 of 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.kltCrl.R.C.No.2132 of 2023 andCrl.M.P.No.19359 of 202320.08.2025Page 11 of 11