K JAYAVELU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision case against conviction. The case of the prosecution summarily was as follows: - On 28.4.1982 at 6.30 a.m. at Vaduguppatti in Trichy-Madurai road the accused drove van TMX 6267 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the same against a scooter TNO 9629 on which were one Subramanian and another Pakiaraj. On account of the impact, both these persons found their death. The accused was, therefore, prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. On behalf of the prosecution, nine witnesses were examined out of wnom P.W.3 turned hostile. Twelve exhibits were marked and two material objects were produced. The trial Court, after perusing the entire evidence and hearing both sides, found that the accused was guilty of an offence under Sec.304-A, I.P.C. (2 counts) convicted him thereunder and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under each count, with a direction to suffer the imprisonment concurrently for both counts. The above convictions and sentences were confirmed on appeal by the learned Sessions Judge, Pudukottai, in C.A.No.50 of 1983, by judgment dated 24.6.83. It is against that judgment that the present revision case is filed.

(2.) IN the grounds of revision, the revision petitioner urged the same grounds as those urged before the appellate Court and which have been answered by the appellate Court. The revision petitioner does not show, how the reasoning and the finding of the appellate Court in respect of those points are wrong. It may be added that the main sheet-anchor of the revision petitioner appears to be that there is no eye witness in this case supporting the case of the prosecution. It is clearly established that both the persons on the scooter found their death on account of the impact, that the van was driven by the accused and that there was no mechanical defect either in the van or in the scooter. No doubt in accidents like this people cannot expect what is going to happen and therefore witness each and every minute detail before the impact in order to explain how the accident occurred. The witnesses would be aware of the facts only after the accident and would try to reconstitute the facts The best witnesses in these cases, would be obviously the persons driving the respective vehicles Since the scooter driver found his death, the accused alone can be said to be a fit witness But the fact remains, as seen from Ex.P5, sketch drawn by P.W.7, Motor Vehicles INspector, that the impact was on the western side of the road while the van was moving from north to south. Hence, at the time of impact the van was at its extreme right whereas the scooter was well on its left. The circumstances only reinforce the case of the prosecution.

(3.) THE third ground on which the revision petitioner laid stress is that the trial Court failed to question him on the sentence. Even if the trial Court has not questioned the petitioner in respect of the sentence, it was open to the petitioner to put forth his plea before the appellate Court regarding sentence. THE occurrence had taken place in the year 1982. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the sentence is modified as follows: - THE revision petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine consolidated fine of Rs.3,000 (Rupees three thousand only) including the amount earlier paid, if any, within three months from the date of receipt of this order by the trial Court, failing which he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year. THE driving licence of the petitioner shall be suspended for a period of six months. THE trial Court shall send intimation of the conviction to the licensing authority which issued the driving licence to the petitioner herein, as prescribed by Sec.131-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.