R RADHAKRISHNAN ALIAS VELUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment passed in C.A.No.195 of 2006 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC No.II, Coimbatore dated 18.12.2006 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.147 of 2002 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi dated 10.04.2006. Animadverting upon the judgment passed in C.A.No.195 of 2006 by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, FTC No.II, Coimbatore dated 18.12.2006 confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.147 of 2002 by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Pollachi dated 10.04.2006, this criminal revision is focussed.

(2.) PITHILY and precisely, compendiously and concisely the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that it is an admitted fact that the driver himself is a neighbour of those witnesses and in order to help the aged lady who sustained already some fracture, he was taking her along with other relatives in that jeep and in that process alone, the axil got broken and the accident occurred. However, the eye witnesses would coherently state that it is because of the rash and negligent driving of the jeep only, he was constrained to apply the brake suddenly which made the jeep to go helter-skelter to the left side of the road and thereby, it dashed as against a palm tree and because of that alone the left side wheel got dislocated. THE Motor Vehicles Inspector, P.W.8, with reference to Ex.P2 would state that only after the accident the wheel got dislocated and it is not as though the wheel got separated from the vehicle even before the accident.