D SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner stood charged and convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. VII, Coimbatore in C.C. No. 436 of 2006 for the of-fence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC and Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months with fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two weeks with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment of one week for the offence under Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction, the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2006 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and the same was also dismissed on 18.1.2007. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.9.2005, the Head Constable attached to the respondent police received information from C.M.C. Hospital, Coimbatore that they have received a patient with severe injuries on his head. Based on such information, the head constable attached to the respondent police rushed to the hospital. In the meantime, P.W. 1 received a phone call stating that one Veluchamy, known to him, had sustained injuries while he was riding the two wheeler being registration No. TN 39 E 8566 after the two wheeler was hit by a three wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 37 AH 9525 at Bodipalayam Road. Based on such information, P.W. 1 informed the relatives of the said Veluchamy and he also rushed to the hospital, where his complaint was reduced into writing and marked as Exhibit P-1. Based on such complaint, the case in Crime No. 281 of 2005 was registered for the offences under Section 279 and 337 of IPC. On 20.9.2005, the said Veluchamy succumbed to the injuries and died, therefore the case was altered into one under Section 304(A) of IPC. After investigation, the respondent police filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 394(A) read with Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that there is no eye witnesses in this case or there is no evidence to show that it is the accused who had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner which caused the death of the deceased. P.W. 1 himself is not an eye witness and he only received a phone call from some one who informed him that Veluchamy had sustained injuries in a road accident. P.Ws. 2 to 4 are persons who have reached the scene of occurrence after the accident and therefore, their testimony will not in any way lend support to the case of the prosecution. In the absence of any credible evidence to show that the petitioner was guilty of rash and negligent driving or in any manner contributed to the death of the deceased, he is entitled for acquittal. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 AIR(SC) 2511 to contend that death of the deceased by itself cannot be taken into consideration to convict and sentence the petitioner in the absence of any evidence to show the negligence on his part.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent would contend that both the Courts below had taken into consideration the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector to show that severe damages have been caused to the offending vehicles, which would indicate the rashness and negligence with which the petitioner had driven the vehicle. Further, P.W. 9 was examined as a witness on the side of the prosecution, who was traveling in the three wheeler driven by the petitioner/accused, at the time of accident. P.W. 9 in his evidence has stated about the manner in which the accident had occurred. Therefore, there are enough evidence available on record to prove the guilt of the petitioner accused and therefore the Courts below are justified in convicting and sentencing the petitioner, hence, he prayed for dismissal of the Criminal Revision Case.