S. THIRUMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was arrayed as accused in S.T.C. No. 244 of 2007 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1, Tiruppur, was tried for the offence punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC. After trial, the trial court convicted the petitioner for the offence under Section 279 of IPC and sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default, to undergo one month imprisonment and also convicted him under Section 338 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate Court. The appellate Court, while setting aside the sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment imposed on the petitioner for the offence under Section 338 of IPC directed the petitioner to surrender himself before the trial Court and to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the trial Court on any one of the days and to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/ - (Rupees Five Thousand only) by way of compensation for the offence committed by him. 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 21.6.2006 at 11 A.M. at Thiruppur, Avinashi Road near Bishop School, the appellant/accused rashly and negligently moved his bus while P.W. 3 was alighting down from the bus and because of his rash and negligent, she fell down and sustained grievous injuries. In this context, a complaint was given by PW1 to the respondent police based on which, the case in Crime No. 1045 of 2006 came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 338 of IPC on 22.06.2006. Based on the registration of the case, PW8, Sub -Inspector of Police commenced investigation and recorded the statement of witnesses.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that Courts below failed to consider the contradictory statement made by P.W. 1 to P.W. 3. The learned counsel submitted that P.W. 1 in his evidence has stated that himself and his father -in -law were alighting from front entrance and P.W. 3, his mother -in -law was alighting from rear entrance of the bus whereas P.W. 3 had deposed that all of the three were alighting down from rear entrance of the bus. Once there is a discrepancy in the evidence, 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 279 IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that the duty of the driver is to move the vehicle, after getting signal from the conductor by his whistle and in this case, the conductor has not been examined to show that the petitioner moved the bus without getting whistle sound. Therefore, the learned counsel prays that the revision has to be allowed.

(3.) I heard the counsel for both sides. By consent of both sides, the Criminal Revision itself is taken up and disposed of.