MAHESWARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is filed against the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track No. 1, Coimbatore passed in C.A. No. 469 of 2004 dated 24.1.2007 conforming the judgment made in C.C No. 485 of 2000 datec 6.10.2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1,Pollachi.

(2.) THE learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Pollachi convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. The learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track No. 1, Coimbatore, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the lower Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would further contend that, according to the evidence of P.W.9, Sub-Inspector of Police, the complaint was given at 1.15 p.m., whereas, the evidence has been recorded at 9.30 a.m., whereas, the Inspector of Police would contend that when he was in the police station, complaint was lodged in his presence. Therefore, there is contradiction in respect of the timing of complaint and starting of investigation. He would also further contend that according to the Inspector of Police, the investigation started at 10.30 a.m. When there are such vital contradictions, the Court ought not to have convicted the accused/ revision petitioner. He would further contend that none of the witnesses, excepting the Investigation Officer has stated from which direction the bus was going on and where the deceased has crossed the road. When there is no specific allegation regarding the way in which the vehicle was driven and the way in which the accident has occurred, the Court ought not to have granted the conviction and sentence.