KARNAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and on completion of trial, the trial court convicted him for the offences under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs.500.00 for the offence under Section 279 of IPC, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC with fine of Rs.3,000, failing which to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court, the petitioner unsuccessfully appealed before the appellate Court as the Crl. Appeal No.7 of 2006 filed by him was dismissed by the Appellate Court on 20.09.2006. As against the same, the petitioner has come forward with the present Criminal Revision.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 04.01.2003 at about 8.00 pm, PW1-Shanthi was going by walk along with her husband Arul who was also walking along with her by pushing the by-cycle. At that time, the lorry bearing Registration No. TAM 7677 was driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner and hit the husband of PW1 namely Arul from behind. In the impact, the husband of PW1 was dragged for some distance and he sustained grievous injuries in his abdomen and other vital parts of the body. He was taken to the hospital in an auto and inspite of the treatment given to him, he died at 9.40 pm. On the next day i.e., 05.01.2003, PW1 gave a complaint to PW6, Sub-Inspector of Police, based on which the case in Crime No. 7 of 2003 came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304-A of IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that PW1 is an interested witness and her evidence cannot be taken note of to base a conviction. Further, there are contradiction in the version of PWs 1, 2 and 3 which were not taken note of by the trial court as well as the first appellate Court. The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW1 in the proper perspective, as, PW1, in her evidence stated that at the time of accident, she was at Sivathapuram and she came to know about the accident only later. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the presence of PW1 in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful and therefore, he prayed for setting aside the judgment of the courts below.