G JAGADEESWARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tharapuram, Erode, confirming the judgement dated 9.1.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam. Challenging and impugning the judgement dated 23.5.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Tharapuram, Erode, confirming the judgement dated 9.1.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the 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 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 Exs.P1 to P9 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked. On the accused side, the accused examined himself as D.W.1 along with one other witness as D.W.2 and documentary evidence was adduced on his side. (c) Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused and imposed the following sentence. Case No. Offence Punishment imposed C.C.No,297 of 2004 279 IPC Fine of Rs.500/- in default, simple imprisonment for two weeks 304-A IPC Rigourous imprisonment for six months, and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, three months S.I. (d) As against which, C.A.No,30 of 2006 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Kangayam, Erode District, which Court confirmed in toto the conviction recorded and sentence imposed by the lower Court. (e) Impugning and challenging the judgements 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 testimony of the alleged eye witness, namely, P.W.1 does not go hand in hand with the sketch drawn by the I.O. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the relatives of the deceased and hence, their evidence should not have been believed by the Courts below. The evidence of D.W.2 was ignored unjustifiably. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prays for setting aside the order of the Courts below.

(3.) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor by inviting the attention of this Court to the various portions of the evidence, would develop his argument to the effect that this is a case in which the accident occurred while the driver of the bus was driving the vehicle from East to West direction along the road cobncerned in a rash and negligent manner and dashed as against the motorcyclist, who was coming from West to East and that after the accident, the driver of the bus did not stop the bus, but he could only stop it at a long distance away from the accident and this is indicative of the driver's rash and negligence in driving the vehicle, without caring for the safety of the other road users.