GOVINDARAJALU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was arrayed as accused in C.C. No. 128 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Cuddalore, was tried for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. After trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, confirmed the conviction and sentence ordered by the trial court. As against the same, the present Criminal Revision Case is filed. The facts of the case, as could be unfolded from the records, is that on 28.12.2003 at about 8.05 pm, PW 9 stopped his bus bearing Registration No. TN 32 N - 1397 in the bus stand for the passengers to alight from the bus. At that time, the petitioner/accused who was coming in his Auto in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction, carrying the deceased Gokulakrishnan and four others, tried to overtake the tricycle going before it and thereby hit the bus, standing in the bus stand. Due to which, the said deceased sustained injuries in his head and was admitted to the Cuddalore Government Hospital and thereafter was shifted to the General Hospital, Chennai where he succumbed to the injuries on 31.12.2013. In this context, a complaint was given by PW 9 - Driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bus, to the respondent police based on which the case in Crime No. 1225 of 2003 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 IPC. Based on the registration of the case, PW 12, Inspector of Police commenced investigation and recorded the statement of the witnesses. During the course of investigation, on 31.12.2003, inspite of treatment, the deceased Gokulakrishnan died in the hospital. Therefore, the FIR in Crime No. 1225 of 2003 was altered into one under Section 304-A of IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that once there is no direct evidence to prove that the petitioner had hit the bus and thereby caused the accident, the courts below ought to have given the benefit of doubt in favour of the revision petitioner, instead of convicting him for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Even according to PW 1, who was projected by the prosecution as an eye witness, he has admitted in the cross-examination that he did not see the petitioner in the accident spot and he went to the accident spot only after the incident. Therefore, PW 1 is an hearsay witness. Similarly, PW 2 also admitted that he has not seen the auto driver. Even PW 2 in his cross-examination had stated that he did not see the accident and when he went there, the place was crowded. Thus, PW 2 also is not an eye-witness. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 are not trustworthy, believable. Moreover, only to safe-guard the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation driver, the whole case has been foisted. Further, he would submit that the damage was caused only to the Auto and not to the Transport Corporation bus. Hence, he would submit that the courts below ought not to have convicted the petitioner.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent would contend that P.Ws. 1 and 2 are the eye witnesses in this case and they have categorically stated that the bus was standing in the bus stand and it was the auto, which was coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bus while trying to overtake the tricycle, resulting in the death of the person, who was travelling in the Auto. The courts below analysed the evidence available on record and came to a correct conclusion. Therefore, the order passed by the courts below need not be interfered with.