GNANASEKARAN ALIAS SEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner is the sole accused in C.C.No. 13397 of 82 on the file of the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras. He was tried in the said case for offences under Section 304 (A),337 I.P.C. on five counts, and Sections 116,89 (A) and (B) read with Section 118 (A) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(2.) The case of the Prosecution is that on 8-9-1982, he drove a lorry bearing registration No. AAW 2266 in a rash and negligent manner in a road called C.P. Road Madras. While driving so rashly and negligently, the vehicle went out of his control, in that, the vehicle went over a platform and ran over two people namely Alliammal and Ramadoss who were sleeping there and dashed against the door No. 5. As a result of this accident Ramadoss who sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital, died on 12-9-1982. Alliammal Kothandan, Shanthi Rajalakshmi and Vijaya sustained injures. Those injured witness had been examined as P.Ws. 1,3,4 and 6. Not content with causing the accident as stated above, the revision petitioner did not even bother to give any first-aid to the injured but curiously ran away from the place of occurrence. 2-A. On the complaint lodged with the police, the Investigating Agency, after completing all the formalities regarding investigation, filed a charge-sheet against the accused petitioner as stated above. P.Ws. 1 and 3 speak about the identity of the person who drove the vehicle. The Motor Vehicles Inspector who was examined as P.W. 2, inspected the vehicle and gave a report that there was no mechanical defect in the vehicle. Since the vehicle was abandoned in the place of occurrence itself, the Investigating Officer was able to trace P.W. 5 who is running the office in the name of "AnJhra Transport" which is a Lorry booking office. On enquiry, the said P.W. 5 caught hold of the accused and surrendered him to the police. It is his evidence before Court that vehicles which enter the Tamil Nadu from Andhra Pradesh could be looked after at his transport office and the drivers hailing from Andhra Pradesh after a long journey would be taking rest in the lorry shed. At that time the accused used to drive those lorries for hire. Though the accused contended before the trial Court that he was not the person who drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, yet the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 3 coupled with the evidence of P.W. 5 who surrendered the accused to the police, clinchingly establishes that it was the accused who drove the vehicle and there cannot be any doubt about it. The trial Court, after going through the evidence of the injured witnesses as well as that of the Motor Vehicles Inspector came to the conclusion that the accused was guilty of the offences alleged against him and thus convicted him for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for one year for offence under Section 304 (A) I.P.C., three months R.I. for offence under Section 337 I.P.C. (on five counts) and a fine of Rs. 50/- for each of the offences under Section 89 (A) and (B) read with Section 118 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

(3.) Aggrieved against the judgment of conviction, the revision petitioner filed an appeal which was taken on file by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, in C. A.No. 96 of 1985. The appellate Judge, after going through the evidence on record, confirmed the judgment of learned trial Judge.