VIJAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.11.2006 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore in C.A.No,95 of 2005 confirming the judgment dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, in C.C.No.123 of 2004.) Challenging and impugning the judgment dated 23.11.2006 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, in C.A.No,95 of 2005, confirming the judgment dated 31.1.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Udumalpet, in C.C.No.123 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) A 'resume' of facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this case would run thus:- The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Sections 279, 338(2 counts) and 304(A) IPC as against the accused. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. (b) During trial, on the prosecution side P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the accused side no documentary or oral evidence was adduced. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused and imposed the following sentence. TABLE (d) As against which, C.A.No,95 of 2005 was filed before the Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore, which Court confirmed in toto the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the lower Court. (e) Impugning and challenging the judgments of both the Courts below, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the nitty-gritty of them would run thus:- Both the Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the alleged eye witnesses have not supported the prosecution version. In fact, P.W.6's evidence is a ear say one. The evidence of D.W.1 is clear and cogent, even then both the Courts below rejected the same. Accordingly, the accused prayed for setting aside the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the trial Court and as confirmed by the appellate Court.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would develop his argument to the effect that the very topo sketch would exemplify and demonstrate that the lorry was proceeding from West to East, whereas, the Maruthi car driven by the deceased's husband was proceeding from East to West and it is because of the fault of the driver of the Maruthi car, the accident occurred and the driver of the Maruthi car was so rash and negligent that he drove the car and got it dashed as against the tree and caused the death of his wife, who was sitting beside him in the Maruthi car.