P RAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is an accused in C.C.No.349/2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram and he has been convicted for the offence u/s.304(A) and 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for the offence u/s 304(A) IPC and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.900/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 9 weeks for the offence u/s 279 IPC. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the learned Principal District Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Crl.A.No.60/2007. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner has preferred this criminal revision.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on the date of occurrence, the deceased and his brother PW1 were going on the road, each one in a separate bicycle. On Namakkal Salem main road, near Malur, the Government Transport Corporation Bus driven by the accused came in a high speed and dashed on the bicycle in which the deceased was riding. The deceased fell down and died on the spot. The driver, after stopping the bus had run away from the scene of occurrence. PW1 gave a complaint to the police about the accident. In order to establish the case, the prosecution examined PW1 to PW11 and marked Exs.1 to 7. The accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC and he had denied his complexity and not examined any defence witness. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court found the accused guilty.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr.S.Senthilnathan submitted that the witnesses to the occurrence do not speak about the rash and negligent driving of the accused and mere fact that the bus came in high speed would not amount to rash and negligent driving. The learned counsel further submitted that though M.V. Inspector's report Ex.P7 is marked, the m.v. Inspector has not been examined by the prosecution which amounts to serious infirmity in the prosecution case. The learned counsel also relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1998 SCC (Cr) 1508 [State of Karnataka Vs. Satish].