STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE Vs. NAVEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed as against the judgment dated 30.09.2011 made in S.C.No.267 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Coimbatore thereby acquitted the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 304(part ii 7 counts), 326 (3 counts) and 323 (6 counts) of I.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 03.06.2010 at about 05.00 p.m., the respondent/accused drove a mini bus bearing Registration No.TN 38 A 7657 between Thudiyalur and Periyanaickenpalayam via Idikarai. While he was crossing the unmanned level crossing, he suddenly stopped the bus at the railway track between Periyanaicken Railway Station and Thudiyalur Railway Station. Even after seeing the passenger special train No.3 running from Mettupalayam to Coimbatore and having knowledge that the train would hit the bus, the driver parked the minibus across the railway line and caused the death of the passengers travelled in the minibus. Even though the driver of the train applied sudden brake, the engine could only slow down the speed and dashed against the minibus and caused the death of 7 passengers and caused grievous hurts to 9 other passengers.

(3.) P.W.1 Tmt.Janaki, one of the passenger travelled in the minibus was given her statement and on her statement Ex.01, the case has been registered by the Coimbatore Railway Police in crime No.227 of 2010 for the offences undey Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(2) of I.P.C. The FIR is marked as Ex.P25. P.W.37, Inspector of Police conducted detailed investigation and laid charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Sections 279, 304(part ii-7 counts), 323 (6 counts) and 326 (3 counts) of I.P.C. The trial Court framed charges and the accused pleaded not guilty. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.38 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 and produced material objects M.O.1 to M.O. When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. about the incriminating evidence against him, he denied the same. On the side of the accused, he examined D.W.1 as defence witness. On considering the above oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences stated above. As against the said acquittal, the present appeal is preferred by the State.