RAMU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the complaint given by the de facto complainant/P.W.1, namely, Samiyappan, a case in Crime No. 91 of 2005 was filed against the accused/the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC. After investigation, final report has been filed and the same was taken cognizance in C.C. No. 257 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Perundurai. After trial, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against which, the accused has filed Crl.A. No. 303 of 2008 before the learned Additional District Court/Fast Track Court No. 1, Erode and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present Criminal Revision Case.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 08.5.2005, at about 11.00 a.m., on Theethambal Nal Road, the accused being the driver of the van bearing registration No. T.N.33 Z 4394 proceeding from East to west in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against one Scooterist Murugesan. As a result of which, the said Murugesan sustained multiple injuries and died. In this context, the de facto complainant/P.W.1 had given a complaint based on which the accused was proceeded with for the offences as mentioned above.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not argue on merits but confined his argument only on the question of sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a driver and if sentence of imprisonment is imposed on him, it will affect his entire family. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not having any previous case and that he is the sole bread winner of the family and he has to take care of his children. It is submitted that the petitioner is repenting his misdeeds and is also willing to pay some compensation to the family members of the deceased. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner pray for showing leniency in reduction of sentence.