M SWAMINATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in C.C.No.381 of 2008 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, is the revision petitioner herein. The learned Magistrate found the accused guilty of offences under Section 279 and 304(A) [3 counts] of IPC. The accused was accordingly convicted under Sections 279 and 304(A) [3 counts] of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for each count for offence under Section 304(A) [3 counts] of IPC. The sentences were ordered to run consecutively. The learned Magistrate, however, did not impose separate sentence for offence under Section 279 of IPC. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 19.12.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 29 of 2011 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-III, Tiruvallur, confirming the conviction of the accused under Section 304A [3 Counts] of IPC recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruttani, Tiruvallur District, in C.C.No.381 of 2008, the accused has come up with this criminal revision case.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:- This is a case, where three persons, who were closely related to each other, lost their lives in a road traffic accident. The first deceased is by name Vibushnam [D1] and the second deceased is by name Sundararjan [D2]. D2 is none other than the sister's son of D2 and P.W.1. The third deceased is by name Sumathi [D3]. She is the daughter of D1. On 08.09.2008, D1 to D3 were coming in a motor cycle bearing Regn. No. TN 09 T 4155 from West to East on Tiruttani - Chennai High Ways in order to admit the daughter [D2] of D1 in a college. When they were coming near B.K.R. Engineering College Junction at 09.00 a.m. a speeding car bearing Regn. No.TN 22 BA 5061 which was being driven by the accused in a rash and negligent manner in the opposite direction dashed their motor cycle as a result D1 to D3 sustained injuries. D1 to D3 were immediately taken to the Tiruttani Government Hospital Hospital where the Doctor on duty, on examining D1-Vibushnam and D2-Sundarajan declared them as dead. D3, who was shifted to Sri Ramachandra Medical College and Hospital for higher treatment, subsequently succumbed to injuries on the next day of occurrence. P.W.1, who witnessed the occurrence, immediately went to the police station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) alleging that When D1 and D3 were coming in a motor cycle and D2 was walking behind the motor cycle the offending vehicle dashed against them which resulted in injuries to D1 to D3. On receiving this information, P.W.13, the Inspector of Police, Tiruttani, registered a case in Crime No. 1447 of 2008 for offence under Sections 279 and 304-A of IPC. He prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.8). Taking up the case for investigation, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence, where he prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.10) and a rough sketch (Ex.P9) in the presence of witnesses. Then he proceeded to the hospital where he conducted inquest on the body of D1 and D2 individually and prepared separate inquest reports. Subsequently, on receiving the death intimation from the hospital, on 09.06.2008, P.W.13 conducted inquest on the body of D3 also and prepared an inquest report (Ex.P.12). He forwarded the bodies of D1 to D3 for postmortem. The doctors conducted autopsy on the bodies of D1, D3 and D2 respectively. ExsP.6, P.7 and P.2 are postmortem certificates relating to D1, D2 and D3 respectively. In the mean time, the offending vehicle and the motor cycle involved in the accident were seized by the police and they were mechanically inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspectors from the Office of Regional Transport Authority at Tiruvallur. P.W.13 obtained the reports from the respective Motor Vehicle Inspectors. On completing the investigation, P.W.13 laid charge sheet against the accused for offences under Section 279 and 304(A) (3 counts) of IPC.

(3.) Based on the above materials collected by the prosecution during investigation, the trial court framed charges under Sections 279 and 304(A) (3 counts) of IPC. The accused denied the commission of the offence, therefore, he was put to trial. In order to prove the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined examined as many as 13 witnesses and marked 12 documents. No material object was marked.