PANNEERSELVAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, in Crl.A.No.91 of 2005 confirming the judgment dated 24.6.2006 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thiruppathur, Vellore District, in C.C.No.96 of 2004.Animadverting upon the judgment dated 31.3.2006 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore, in Crl.A.No.91 of 2005 confirming the judgment dated 24.6.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Thiruppathur, Vellore District, in C.C.No.96 of 2004 this criminal revision case is focussed.

(2.) THE long and short, and the epitome of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision case, would run thus: (a) THE police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 of Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offence under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) of I.P.C. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. (b) During trial, on the side of the prosecution as many as twelve witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.12 and Exs.P1 to P8 were marked. On the accused's side no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.(c) Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed the following sentences:Table

(3.) THE learned counsel for the revision petitioner, reiterating the grounds of revision would develop his argument to the effect that the very sketch drawn by the I.O. is far from satisfactory and it does not reflect the reality and in fact it is quite antithetical to the version given by P.W.2, who along with his father, all of a sudden, attempted to stop the minidoor lorry, so as to go to the town area, as there was no bus facility, and in that process, they came across the minidoor lorry and thereby they only invited the accident on themselves.