PANNEER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent police has registered a case in Crime No.291 of 2002 against the revision petitioner herein for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of I.P.C. stating that the accused had driven the bus bearing Registration No.TN-55-8040 on the Vaniyambadi to Alangayam Main Road on 02.10.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. and at that point of time the accused had driven the bus in a negligent manner and at high speed and dashed against the motorcyclist, bearing Registration No.TN-23-G-2182, as a result the rider of the motorcycle had sustained simple injuries while the pillion rider Srinivasan had succumbed to his injuries. Hence, the above said case is levelled against the accused. The respondent police had conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Thirupathur. The said case numbered as C.C.No.12 of 2003. On the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses have been examined and 7 documents were marked, no material objects. On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no exhibits was marked and no material objects.

(2.) Pw2, the rider of the motorcycle had adduced evidence stating that he was riding the bike bearing Registration No.TN-23-G-2182 on the Vaniyambadi to Alangayam Main Road on 02.10.2002 at about 9.00 p.m. The deceased Srinivasan was the pillion rider on the motorcycle. The accused had driven the bus in TN-55-8040 in a negligent manner and at high speed on the same direction and dashed against them. The pillion rider was his brother. While the deceased was taken to the C.M.C. Hospital, Vellore, wherein it was declared that he had expired on the way. PW1 had in formed at the Police Station and he took both the victimized to the hospital. PW3, Sivakumar is the brother of the deceased, who was present at the time of the postmortem. PW4-Doctor had adduced evidence stating that the pillion rider i.e. PW2 had sustained simple injuries. PW5-Dr.Ambiga Shanmugam had adduced evidence that she conducted postmortem and submitted the postmortem report. PW6-Sub-Inspector of Police conducted an enquiry and prepared a rough sketch which has been marked as Exhibit-P6. PW7-Motor Vehicle Inspector had conducted an inspection of the offending bus and adduced evidence stating that the accident had not happened due to mechanism failure. PW8 had also adduced evidence on the same line of PW1. PW9-Inspector of Police, had also adduced evidence that PW2 had ridden the motorcycle on his extreme left side but due to rash and negligent driving of the accused, the accident had been invited.

(3.) In order to prove the prosecution case, the below mentioned exhibits were marked namely: Complaint, Wound Certificate, Postmortem certificate, F.I.R., Motor Vehicle Inspector's report, Rough sketch and Inquest report. On considering the evidence of the witnesses and on perusing the exhibits marked by the prosecution and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel on either side, the learned Magistrate has come to the conclusion that the accused had committed the said accident, in a rash and negligent manner and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, the accused was found guilty under Section 304(A) I.P.C., convicted and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month and convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C., since the offence under Sections 304(A) and 337 of I.P.C. includes the offence envisaged under Section 279 of I.P.C. no separate sentence imposed on the accused.