V RAMACHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.VIII, Coimbatore in C.C.No.14 of 2001 dated 16.11.2004 for the offences under Sections 304-A, 338 and 279 of IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each of the offences under Sections 338 and 279 of IPC and ordered the sentences to run concurrently, which was confirmed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in C.A.No.511 of 2004 dated 10.01.2006. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the revision petitioner has preferred this revision.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 12.12.2000 at about 10.45 a.m, the deceased was riding his scooter in which, PW6 was a pillion rider and P.Ws. 2, 3 and 7 were following them in another vehicle. At that time, a Marutii omni van being driven by the accused, came in the opposite direction in a high speed and dashed against the scooter driven by the deceased and due to the impact, the deceased and the pillion rider fell down. THE deceased died in the hospital. Ex.P1 is the post mortem certificate. THE complaint is Ex.P2, which was given by one Krishnamoorthy; Ex.P3 is the Observation Mahazar. PW6 was examined by the Doctor and he issued Ex.P4, the wound certificate. Ex.P5 is the Death intimation of the deceased; Ex.P6 is the report given by the Motor Vehicles Inspector; Ex.P7 is the first information report; Ex.P8 is the rough sketch and Ex.P9 is the inquest report. PW9 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. Both the Courts below after considering the evidence convicted the petitioner/accused.

(3.) THIS Court heard the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the judgments given by both the courts below and also perused the other records. Both the Courts relied on the injured witness and other witnesses, which clearly proved the rashness and negligent on the part of the accused. THIS Court also does not find any infirmity in the conviction passed by both the Courts below.