Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 3621 (MAD)

Vetrivelan v. State

2013-10-08

K.B.K.VASUKI

body2013
ORDER 1. The revision petitioner is the accused who faced trial in CC. No. 1356 of 2003 for the offence under Section 304A IPC. The accused suffered judgment of conviction and sentence in CC. No. 1356 of 2003 as confirmed in CA. No. 367 of 2005 by the lower appellate Court. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the accused at about 17.00hrs on 14.09.2003 was driving his water tanker lorry in rash and negligent manner from east to west on Anna Main Road and took diversion opposite to Indian Bank, MGR Nagar branch, Chennai and proceeded in the same speed towards west and dashed against the motor cycle coming in opposite direction resulting in head injury to the rider of the motor cycle who later succumbed to the head injuries in Vijaya Hospital, despite treatment, on 17.09.2003 at 9.45 hours.. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the guilt of the accused examined PW1, PW2 and PW5/eyewitnesses PW4 to PW7/Doctors, PW9 and PW10 Motor Vehicle Inspector and Police official as PW1 to PW12 and produced Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 documents. Both the Courts below, on the basis of the available records having found that the water tanker lorry came at high speed in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased and the driver of the lorry was solely responsible for the accident, convicted and sentenced him for the above said offence. Aggrieved against the same, the accused is before this Court by way of this criminal revision. 4. Heard the rival submissions made on both sides and perused the records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would seriously argue that the findings of both the Courts below that the motor vehicle was driven at high speed in rash and negligently, is not supported by any materials and the same is baseless and unfounded, as such no offence under Section 304A is attracted and the conviction of sentence for the same is thus unsustainable, both in law and on facts. It is also submitted that no reliance can be placed upon Ex.P8/rough sketch which only indicates mere position of the vehicle, after the accident and the same cannot be treated as substantial proof regarding rash and negligent part of one or other. It is also submitted that no reliance can be placed upon Ex.P8/rough sketch which only indicates mere position of the vehicle, after the accident and the same cannot be treated as substantial proof regarding rash and negligent part of one or other. The learned counsel for the petitioner has in support of his contention also cited the following authorities reported in Jiju Kuruvila and Others v. Kunjujamma Mohan and Others AIR 2013 SC 2293 : (2013) 9 SCC 166 : LNIND 2013 SC 625 : (2013) 5 MLJ 751 and Indramani Jena v. State of Orissa 1992 Crl.LJ 72 Orissa High Court. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to the evidence of the so called eyewitnesses PW1, PW2 and PW5. While PW1 and PW2 depose in favour of the prosecution case, PW5 turned hostile. PW5 except stating that he came to know about the accident did not further say that he eye-witnessed the accident. As far as evidence of PW1 and PW2 are concerned, PW1 stated to have followed the vehicle driven by deceased Ravi @ Ravichandran and PW2/Ramanathan was the pillion rider of the vehicle driven by PW1/Sekar. It may be true that PW1 and PW2 would say that the vehicle was driven at high speed on the wrong direction and they did not say that it was driven in rash and negligent manner. The prosecution theory regarding high speed, if viewed in the light of Ex.P8 appears to be improbable. 7. It is not in dispute that there was digging of the road during the relevant point of time and broader southern side of east west road was completely blocked, as such both ways vehicle used to go by northern portion of east west road. The water tanker lorry was driven from east to west and took a turn and was proceeding towards east to west and at that time both the vehicles dashed against each other. The position of the vehicle in the scene of occurrence, if viewed in the light of the fact that both ways vehicle were driven on the same line would improbablise the prosecution case that the water tanker lorry was driven at high speed and other probability can be completely ruled out. 8. Regarding the rash and negligent manner in which the vehicle was driven, the same is also not spoken by either PW1 or PW2. 8. Regarding the rash and negligent manner in which the vehicle was driven, the same is also not spoken by either PW1 or PW2. Even otherwise, PW1 and PW2 would say that the vehicle was driven on the wrong direction. When only one way is available, then both ways vehicle cannot be faulted for going in the same direction. As a matter of fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 24 of the judgment above cited on the side of the petitioner, has observed that the rough sketch regarding the scene of occurrence cannot give substantial proof as to the rash and negligent driving. It can only suggest or presume the manner in which the accident caused, but in the absence of any direct or corroborative evidence, no conclusion can be drawn as to whether there was negligence on the part of the driver. 9. In the present case, one such material is certainly not available, as such the finding rendered by both the Courts below in this regard is baseless and unfounded and the same cannot be allowed to sustain. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, both the Courts below have committed serious error in rendering such findings without any material and the same stands vitiated and warrants interference by this Court. 10. In the result, the criminal revision stands allowed by setting aside the judgment dated 31.01.2007 made in C.A. No. 367 of 2005 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 5, Chennai and order dated 23.09.2005 in C.C. No. 1356 of 2003 on the file of XI Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet. Revision allowed.