INRE BALASUBRAMANI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BALASUBRAMANI/revision petitioner herein was found guilty of the offences under sections 304a and 338 Indian Penal Code and section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act, convicted there under and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for period of 9 months for the offence under section 304, Indian Penal Code, and rigorous imprisonment for two months for offence under section 388, Indian Penal Code, and to pay a fine of Rs. 50 in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks under section 116 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Against the aforesaid finding of sentence, the revision petitioner preferred CA No 399/82 before the lower appellate Court. The lower appellate court also confirmed the convictions as well as the sentences imposed on the revision petitioner and the findings of the trial court, and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower appellate court, the accused-Balasubramani has come forward with this criminal revision case.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is as follows: The deceased Rethinam and P. W. 1 Varadarajan were proceeding in a scooter from Pondy Bazaar to Vauhini Studio on 29.6. 1981. P. W. 1 was seated in the pillion seat and Rethinam was driving the scooter. At about 6 p. m. , in the evening P. W. 1 and Rethinam were driving along Kodambakkam Arcot Road and they were proceeding from east to west along the left side of the road. At that time, the bus M. S. Q. 8099 plying in route No. 12b came at a high speed in the opposite direction. The revision petitioner was driving the bus. The bus came on the right side of the road and hit against the scooter. As a result of the impact, the scooter was thrown out. P. W. 1 as well as the deceased Rethinam sustained injuries. Rethinam died as a result of the injuries sustained on account of the accident. P. W. 1 gave Ex. P1 report to the police. P. W. 3, the doctor treated P. W. 1 for his injuries and issued Ex. P2 wound certificate. P. W. 2 the doctor has stated in his evidence that the X-ray of the injury in the right wrist showed that there was a fracture of the radius. Therefore, P. W. 2 gave the opinion that the injury is grievous and the other two injuries are simple in nature.

(3.) THE revision petitioner has denied the case of the prosecution. He had examined a photographer as D. W.1. D. W. 1 has stated that at the instance of the police he took a photograph of the place of scene soon after the occurrence. Ex. Dl is stated to be the photograph taken by P. W. 1, and the corresponding negative has been filed as Ex. D2. The learned Magistrate who tried the case has believed the prosecution case and he has convicted the revision petitioner. As already stated, an appeal was preferred before the lower appellate court. After considering the evidence, the lower appellate court also came to the concurrent conclusion arrived at by the trial court.