S CHIDAMBARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Criminal Revision petition would run thus: The police laid the police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 304-A (4 counts) and 337 (6 counts) I.P.C. The accused on entering appearance pleaded not guilty where upon trial was conducted. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 13 were examined and Exhibits P-1 to 20 were marked. However, neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the accused. The trail Court, ultimately, convicted the accused and imposed sentences as under: Table(ii) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the conviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused preferred appeal before the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.2), Salem, for nothing but to be dismissed confirming the trial Court-s order.(iii) Impugning and challenging the judgment of both the Courts below, this revision is filed on various grounds the warp and woof of them would run thus: The first appellate Court should have reduced the quantum of sentence, as on the date of the appellate Court rendering its judgment, 11 years had lapsed from the date of occurrence. The so called eye witnesses are not believable. Even though both the Courts below placed reliance on the deposition of the witnesses, the Doctor, who conducted post mortem, was not examined before the Court. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside the Judgment of both Courts below.

(2.) DESPITE printing the name of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, there is no representation. The revision petitioner is also absent. The Additional Public Prosecutor has argued the matter.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below, appropriately and appositely, correctly and convincingly dealt with the deposition of P.W.1, the eye witness who also happened to be an injured person in the accident, as he was traveling in the said car. During the cross examination, nothing was elicited so as to discard his testimony. The evidence of P.Ws.7 and 9 is also relied on by the prosecution as they are eye witnesses. In matters of this nature, the evidence of the injured witnesses cannot be termed or labelled as partisan one. They would be the most competent persons to speak about the accident. It is for the accused to cross examine and point out all flaws in their depositions. But in this case, absolutely there is no shard or shared (sic) molecular or iota of falsity in the evidence of P.W.1 as well as in the evidence of other eye witnesses.At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following two decisions of the Apex Court: (i) Bindeshawari Prasad Singh alias B.P. Singh and Others v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) and Another AIR 2002 SC 2907: (2002) SCC (Cri) 1448: (2002) MLJ (Crl) 939 an excerpt from it would run thus at p. 942 of MLJ (Crl):-