KULANDAISAMY Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision Case is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.3.2007 made in CA. No. 84/2006 by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate II, Karur in CC. No. 1311/2004 dated 8.11.2006, thereby convicting and sentencing the Petitioner for the offence under Section 304A of IPC to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months. Mr. Kathirvelu, the learned senior counsel for the Petitioner contended that the conviction and sentence imposed by the court below are not sustainable in law, as the courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence in a proper and perspective manner. The learned senior counsel drew the attention of this court to the evidence of PW. 1 and PW. 2, who claim to be the eye witnesses and contended that the possible inference that could be drawn, in appreciating their evidence, is that they would not have witnessed the actual occurrence.

(2.) The learned senior counsel for the Petitioner would submit that PW. 1, in his cross examination, admitted that he cannot see the place of accident from his house and he had gone to the place of occurrence only on hearing the sound from the place of the accident. The learned senior counsel submitted that as per the testimony of PW. 1, PW. 2 was standing in the bus stop and he also came to the scene of occurrence only on hearing the sound. The learned senior counsel also drew the attention of this court to the admission made by PW. 2 that he also came to the scene of occurrence only on hearing the sound. Therefore, he would submit that the alleged witnesses could not have actually seen the occurrence.

(3.) The learned senior counsel would contend that the oral evidence that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the cyclist on the Eastern side of the road was contradictory to the documentary evidence, i.e., observation mahazar, which revealed that the accident took place on the entry point of Poolamvalasu Village Road, i.e. on the Western side of the North-South road near the bus stop. He would contend that the version of the Prosecution that the accident had occurred on the Eastern side of the road appears to be untenable one being contrary to the documentary evidence, i.e. observation mahazar.