S ARUMUGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, namely, Venugopal, a case in Crime No. 146/A.M.2/2005 was filed against the accused, the petitioner herein, for the offences punishable under Sections 304 (A) of IPC, 338 IPC and 184, 411 read with 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act. After investigation, final report has been filed and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.3354 of 2005 on the file of the IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai - 15. After trial, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 304 (A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment; under Section 338 IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment, under Section 184 of the M.V.Act to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo two weeks simple Imprisonment and for the offence under Section 411 read with 177 of the M.V.Act, to pay a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo one week simple imprisonment. Against which, the accused has filed Crl.A. No.299 of 2007 before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-I) Chennai 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 08.3.2005 at about 8.30 p.m., at Tharamani, C.P.T.Road, near V.H.S.Hospital, the accused drove the tempo traveler van bearing Registration No.TN01-K-4353 from South to north direction in a negligent manner at a high speed and dashed against the motorcycle bearing registration Nos.TN07 AD 1649 and TN07 AB 8276, as a result, the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN07 AD 1649 died on the spot due to the grievous head injuries and the driver of the another motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN07-AB 8276 also sustained grievous injuries on his right hand and left leg. In this context, the defacto complainant 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 accident had occurred only due to the negligent act of the deceased two wheeler, who driven the vehicle in a rash manner. However, the learned counsel submits that he is not pressing the case on merits and he is only questioning the sentence imposed on the petitioner.