SUDARSAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT appears from the facts of the case that on 23rd october, 1977 at about 8-15 a. m. the petitioner was driving his lorry MDY 9138 from south to north between Dindigul and Madurai and that the second accused, who is not before me, was also driving the lorry TMY 7285 from north to south on the same road in the opposite direction. Both the lorries, which were coming in the opposite directions collided against each other with the result that the cleaner of the lorry driven by the petitioner herein sustained injuries and died at the hospital. The second accused and another person by name, Mani who were travelling in another lorry driven by the second accused sustained injuries. IT is under these circumstances, both the petitioner and the second accused were charge-sheeted in a single case, C. C. No. 69 of 1978 before the judicial First Glass Magistrate, Madurai under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, indian Penal Code. The trial Court found them guilty and convicted them thereunder and sentenced each of them, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months for each of the offences under section-279 and 337, Indian Penal Code and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year under each of the offences under sections 338 and 304-A, Indian Penal Code, and directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. On appeal by the accused the conviction was confirmed, but the sentence awarded by the trial court was reduced and was modified into one of fine of Rs. 600 (in all) on each of the accused. IT is against this modification of the sentence by the learned Sessions Judge, madurai Division the above criminal revision has been filed by the petitioner herein alone who was the first accused in C. C. No. 69 of 1978.

(2.) THE only point argued by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is, the accident has taken place on 23rd October, 1977, in which not only the petitioner but also the second accused were involved, and when two persons are involved in the accident by driving their respective lorries, can both the petitioner and the second accused be tried together in one and the same case for the offences under sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A, indian Penal Code and, is not the conviction of the petitioner unsustainable and illegal by such common trial"

(3.) IT is on the basis of the above decisions the learned public prosecutor contends that joint trial of the petitioner along with the second accused, in the instant case, was not vitiated by irregularities nor was it contrary to law.