V KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision Petitioner herein who is the accused in C.C. No. 11 of 2004, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Udumalpet, was convicted for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC(2counts), 279 IPC and 338 IPC (2 counts) and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 4500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months for each count under Section 304(A) IPC(2 counts); and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one week and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week under Section 279 IPC and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one week for each count under Section 338 IPC (2 counts) and the sentences of imprisonment are to run concurrently. The said conviction and sentence were confirmed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A. No. 488 of 2004. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the Petitioner had preferred this criminal revision petition.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.08.2003, P.W.2 drove his Maruthi Van and he was going from Udumalpet to Coimbatore. His two sons (deceased) were sitting in front of the vehicle. His wife P.W.1 was sitting on the back seat of the vehicle. The vehicle was going near The ppampatti in the Pollachi to Udumalpet main road at about 6.00p.m. At that time, the LPG tanker lorry driven by the accused came from the western side to eastern side in a high speed and dashed against the van. Due to that impact, both the children died on the spot and P.W.1 also sustained injuries. P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P.1 to the Police station. P.W.9 Inspector of Police investigated the case and laid the final report.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that P.W.1 had admitted in the cross examination that 15 minutes after the occurrence, police had came to the occurrence spot and they received the signature and as such, the earlier First Information Report had been suppressed in this case. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that P.W.1 had admitted in the cross examination that only after the impact, she could understand about the accident. The learned Counsel further added that the accused who was the lorry driver was not at fault and it was only P.W.2 who drove the Maruthi Van had come to the northern side of the road and the accident was only due to the negligence of P.W.2. The learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to the rough sketch wherein the blood stains were shown on the northern side of the road.