KURUNTHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the criminal revision case was prosecuted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri in C.C.No.109 of 2001 for the offence punishable under Sections 279 I.P.C., 304(A) I.P.C. (7 counts), 338 I.P.C. (7 counts) and 337 I.P.C. (3 counts), found guilty, convicted on all charges and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of one year for the offence under Section 279 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count for the offence punishable under Section 304(A) IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year on each count of the offence under Section 338 IPC and rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count of the offence under Section 337 IPC. On appeal the learned Sessions Judge, Nilgiris District at Udhagamandalam confirmed the conviction for all the aforesaid offences and the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C.(3 counts). However, the sentence awarded for the offence under Sections 279 I.P.C. and 338 I.P.C. (7 counts) were reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment on each count and the sentence for the offence under Section 304(A) I.P.C. (7 counts) was reduced from two years rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment on each count. As against the said judgment confirming the conviction recorded by the trial Court and the modified order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, the present revision case has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE facts leading to the filing of the criminal revision case, in brief, are as follows: - On 09.10.2001 at about 9.30 a.m. the revision petitioner drove the vehicle (lorry) bearing registration No.TDQ 9856 from Kil -Kothagiri to Bomman Estate Via Sholurmattam. The said lorry had been loaded with building materials viz. sand and bricks, to be used for the construction work of PW2 Palraj that was in progress at Bomman Estate. PW1 and several others were allowed to travel in the said lorry. PW1 was allowed to sit in the cabin and the others were allowed to sit on the sand and brick load. The said lorry had a brief stop at Sholurmattam where PW1 and others had tea in a near by shop. Thereafter, the lorry was moved by the accused/revision petitioner to proceed towards Bomman Estate. But after covering a short distance from there, the accused shouted at the passengers informing them that the vehicle was running out of control as the break system had failed and advising them to jump out and escape. Thereafter, the said lorry hit against the compound wall of St. Antony Church building and on a near by tree and then capsized. Two of the passengers died on the spot and five other passengers succumbed to the injuries either on the way to the hospital or after having been admitted in the hospital. Other passengers sustained grievous as well as simple injuries. PW1, who managed to jump out and escape with minor scratches, lodged the complaint with the police at Sholurmuttam Police Station. Based on the said complaint a case was registered on the file of Sholurmuttam Police Station, in Cr.No.134 of 2001 for alleged offences under Sections 304(A), 338 and 337 IPC. Ex.P18 is the First Information Report prepared in the printed form. PW40, the then Inspector of Police at Kothagiri, conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet alleging commission of offences by the revision petitioner/accused, punishable under Sections 279 I.P.C., 304 (A) I.P.C. (7 counts), 337 I.P.C.(3 counts) and 338 I.P.C. (8 counts). The same was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kothagiri as C.C.No.109 of 2001. Necessary charges were framed and the revision petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty. As many as 41 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW41 and 31 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P31. Also 7 materials objects were produced on the side of the prosecution.

(3.) THE learned Judicial Magistrate heard the arguments advanced on either side and on evaluation of the evidence in the light of the arguments advanced, held that the charges framed against the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt, convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the said offences and imposed the sentences as indicated supra. As against the said conviction and sentence the revision petitioner/accused filed an appeal in Criminal Appeal No.60 of 2005 before the learned Sessions Judge, Udhagamandalam. The learned Sessions Judge, Nilgiris District, Udhagamandalam, after hearing, confirmed the conviction for all the aforesaid offences and the sentence imposed for the offence under Section 337 I.P.C. (3 counts). However, the sentence awarded for the offence under Section 279 I.P.C, 304(A) I.P.C. (7 counts) and 338 I.P.C.(7 counts) were reduced as indicated supra. Challenging the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge confirming the conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate and the sentence awarded by the above said lower appellate Court, the present revision has been filed.