SARAVANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner herein, who is the accused in C.C. No. 5 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Salem was convicted for the offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment of one month under Section 304(A) IPC. The order of conviction against the revision petitioner was confirmed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A. No. 28 of 2008. Aggrieved by the said conviction, the petitioner/accused has preferred this criminal revision.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is that on 19.03.2006 at about 20.30 hrs. on Salem -Sankagiri Main Road, Kondalampatti, while the deceased Subramani was standing, the petitioner/accused who drove the Hero Honda bearing Registration No. TN 27 D 3114 came in a high speed and dashed against the said Subramani and caused grievous injuries over his head. He was admitted in the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital at Salem immediately for treatment and the said Subramani died in the hospital and therefore, the petitioner/accused committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submitted that though P.W. 1 and P.W. 2., alleged to be the eye witness to the occurrence, P.W. 1 says that while the deceased was standing on the side of the mud road, the accident took place whereas P.W. 2 says that while the deceased was crossing the road, the accident took place. So according to the learned counsel, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are not eye witnesses. Further, Ex. P6 Rough Sketch reveals that accident took place 6 feet in the thar road and not in the mud road, so charge u/s. 279 and 304(A) IPC is not proved. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though the main ingredient for offence u/s. 279 and 304(A) IPC is rash and negligent driving, P.W. 2 did not say about the negligence of the accused. Similarly, P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were projected as eye witnesses, have not specifically stated that it is the petitioner who had driven the vehicle. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner also submitted that there is an in ordinate delay in preferring the complaint. Under those circumstances, in the absence of any material evidence to show that it is the petitioner who had driven the offending vehicle at the time of accident, the orders of the Courts below cannot be legally sustained and he prayed for allowing this Criminal Revision Case.