V KANNAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. No. 255 of 1986 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore, is the appellant. He was charged for offences punishable Under Sections304- A and 337, I.P.C.

(2.) The prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 9 and marked Exs. P.1 to P. 10 and M.O. 1. The accused has not examined any defence witness. The trial Court found the accused guilty under Section 304-A, I.P.C., convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 2,506/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The trial court also found the accused guilty under Section 337, I.P.C. convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and directed the sentences to run concurrently. The trial court directed the fine amount if paid, to be paid to the wife of the deceased by way of compensation. The accused filed an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge. North Arcot at Vellore in C.A. No. 126 of 1988 who confirmed the conviction and sentences and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved with the judgments of the lower courts, the accused has filed this revision.

(3.) In this revision, the petitioner has stated that there is material discrepancy between the evidence of P.W.1 in court and his version before the police and Ex. P.1. According to the petitioner, in the earlier statement given by P.W. 1, it is stated that P.W. 1 was proceeding from north to south whereas in the evidence given by P.W. 1 he has given a go-by to his earlier statement. The petitioner has stated that the motor cycle came and dashed against the body of the bus and that the lower Courts have failed to accept the defence version without valid reasons. The petitioner has also pointed out that the prosecution has not examined the traffic constable whose evidence is material and his non-examination is fatal to the case of the prosecution. According to the petitioner, the evidence of P.W. land the sketch Ex. P.8 would clearly show that the evidence of P.W.1 the only eye witness for the occurrence cannot be accepted at all Learned Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the bus must have been proceeding in front and that P.W. 1 who was coming behind, was not able to slow down and control his vehicle and so P.W. 1 dashed against the bus. According to the petitioner P.W. 1, was proceeding towards east and the deceased was silting facing east and since P.W. 1 was not able to balance the vehicle, the occurrence has taken place accidently. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that the evidence of P.W. 1 which is materially contrary to his version in Ex. P.1 and also his statement during investigation, ought not to have been accepted by the lower court and the accused should have been acquitted. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out the sketch drawn by the prosecution in this case and contended that from the sketch it appears that the bus was taken from north to east. P.W. 1 has stated that they were hit by the bus while they were going towards officers lane. It is admitted that this is a discrepancy in the evidence of P.W. I. But the lower appellate Court found that this would not effect the merit of the prosecution case.