SUBRAMANIAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent police has registered a criminal case in Crime No.85 of 2001, against the revision petitioner herein / accused for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. stating that the accused had driven the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-43-1929, in a rash and negligent manner, at a high speed and dashed against one Chinnan, a pedestrian, who was proceeding from Palladam towards Chettipalayam on 18.03.2001, at about 2.15 p.m.

(2.) The respondent police conducted investigation and filed the charge sheet before the trial Court and the criminal case has been arrayed as C.C.No.149 of 2002. After serving charge sheet on the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty on questioning and hence the case was proceeded with. On the side of the prosecution, 11 witnesses were examined and 9 documents were marked and no material objects were marked. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. PW1, had adduced evidence that about 2 years ago, at about 4.00 p.m., when he had seen the deceased walking from Palladam towards Chettipalayam on the left side of the road and at that point of time, the accused had driven the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed it against the (deceased), who was his father. Immediately, he had rushed to the occurrence place, wherein his father had fallen and found that he had sustained grievous injuries. PW2 had also adduced evidence which is on similar lines to that of evidence of PW1. He further stated that the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, wherein he was declared dead.

(3.) Pw3, PW4 and PW5 had also spoken on the same lines of PW1 regarding manner of accident. PW6 and PW7 have tuned hostile and they have not supported the prosecution case. PW8, Motor Vehicle Inspector had adduced evidence that he is attached to the Regional Transport Office, Tiruppur and that on the request of Inspector of Police, Ramanaickenpalayam, he had conducted inspection of the vehicle and had certified that the accident had not happened due to any mechanism failure. PW9, Dr.Jayanthi had adduced evidence that on the request of Inspector of Police, Ramanaickenpalayam, she had conducted postmortem and she had opined that the death was caused due to grievous injuries sustained in the road accident. PW10, had adduced evidence that on 18.10.2001, when he was at the police station, Ramanaickenpalayam, as Station House Officer, PW1 had appeared before him and lodged a complaint regarding the said accident. PW11, had adduced evidence that the Criminal case in Crime No.85 of 2001, had been investigated by him after inspecting the occurrence place and that he had prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch on 18.03.2001 at about 21.30 hours. He deposed that he went to the hospital and conducted an inquiry in the presence of Panchayatdars as witnesses. He deposed that on 19.03.2001, the accused himself surrendered before the police station and he was released on bail and the offending vehicle was seized and sent for Inspection to the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He deposed that after receiving Motor Vehicle Inspector's report and postmortem report, the case has been proceeded with.