HEBZIBAI Vs. AYYAPPAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision case is directed against the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tirunelveli in C.C. No.188/2003 dated 26.2.2004, challenging the acquittal of the accused.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as under: P.W.1 is one David Rajkumar, Assistant Manager in Indian Overseas Bank, Murugankurichi, Palayamkottai. On 11.6.2003 at about 5.30 p.m., he was travelling in a scooter bearing Registration No.TDT 9252 along with his Office Manager Jayakumar Jesudoss in the left side of the Nagercoil Road. The vehicle was driven by Jayakumar Jesudoss and P.W.1 is the pillion rider. When the vehicle was coming near Palayamkottai New Bus Stand, a lorry driven by its driver rashly, came from the opposite direction at high speed and dashed against the scooter. Both P.W.1 and Jayakumar Jesudoss sustained injuries. The said Jayakumar Jesudoss was admitted to the hospital by his wife, P.W.5. The complaint was given under Ex.P1 stating that a lorry dashed against him. P.W.2 is the auto -driver. He removed two persons from the scene of occurrence to Sri Sakthi Hospital, Vannarpettai, Tirunelveli. The hospital was run by one Venkatesh Babu, who is the husband of P.W.3. P.W.3 is Dr.Sumathi in the said hospital and she knew the hand -writing of her husband. Ex.P2 is the wound certificate of P.W.1. Ex.P3 is the Death Certificate of the said Jayakumar Jesudoss. P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased. On receipt of the death intimation, he visited his brother in the said Sri Sakthi Hospital. On receipt of intimations, Ex.P6 and Ex.P7, the Head Constable, P.W.8, proceeded to the hospital and recorded the statement of David Rajkumar in Crime No.917 of 2003 under Sections 279, 337 and 304 -A, I.P.C., and filed the complaint which is Ex.P1. Investigation was taken over by P.W.11, who is the Inspector in Perumalpuram Police Station. He visited the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P10 in the presence of P.W.7. Then he examined P.W.1 and carried out inquest over the body of the deceased Jayakumar Jesudoss from 7.30 to 9.30 a.m. on 12.6.2003. Thereafter he prepared Inquest Report, Ex.P12. He recorded the statements of David Rajkumar, Ramesh, Epsi, Wilson, Shanmugasundaram and Balakrishnan and the vehicle was sent to Motor Vehicle Inspector, P.W.4. On 18.6.2003 at about 4.30 p.m., he inspected the scooter involved in the accident. He also inspected the lorry bearing Registration No.TN -72 -A -7009. Post -mortem was conducted by P.W.10 and he gave the post -mortem report, which is Ex.P9. P.W.11 recorded the statement of the doctor who had carried out the post -mortem and he filed charge -sheet against the accused.

(3.) BEFORE the trial Court, P.W.1 to P.W.11, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 and Ex.D1 to Ex.D3 were marked. On consideration of the evidence on record, the Judicial Magistrate -1, Tirunelveli acquitted the accused. Challenging the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate -1, Tirunelveli, the present criminal revision case is filed by the petitioner who is the wife of the deceased Jayakumar Jesudoss. The points for consideration in this revision petition are: