Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 828 (MAD)

Rajesh v. State rep. By The Inspector of Police

2025-02-06

M.NIRMAL KUMAR

body2025
ORDER : The petitioner was convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi (Trial Court) vide judgment, dated 05.03.2019 in C.C.No.41 of 2013 and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 304(A) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 279 IPC, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three weeks for offence under Section 279 IPC. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore (Lower Appellate Court) in Crl.A.No.34 of 2019 and the same was dismissed vide judgment, dated 25.02.2022 confirming the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court. Challenging the same, the present criminal revision case is filed. 2.Gist of the case is that the respondent Police registered an FIR (Ex.P3) in Crime No.118 of 2013 for offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC against the petitioner on the complaint given by PW1/defacto complainant, the brother of the deceased Saraswathi. The case is that on 24.01.2013 at about 06.45 p.m., near Rajalinga Nagar Bus Stand (Chitoor- Katpadi Road), when PW1 sister Saraswathi had gone to purchase groceries in a provision shop, at that time the petitioner who came in his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-23-BC-6329 from North to South in Chitoor-Katpadi Road in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased Saraswathi. Due to which, the deceased Saraswathi sustained injuries on her head, hands and all over her body and died on the spot. The defacto complainant/PW1 who had come to purchase medicines in a nearby medical shop, saw the accident and found the petitioner coming in his bike in a rash and negligent manner without headlight. Immediately, PW1 called his brother/PW2 through phone and thereafter both of them, took their injured sister to the hospital in an auto where the Doctor on examination declared brought dead. 3.On the next day, i.e., 25.01.2013, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to PW10 who registered FIR (Ex.P3) in Crime No.118 of 2013 against the petitioner. Immediately, PW1 called his brother/PW2 through phone and thereafter both of them, took their injured sister to the hospital in an auto where the Doctor on examination declared brought dead. 3.On the next day, i.e., 25.01.2013, PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to PW10 who registered FIR (Ex.P3) in Crime No.118 of 2013 against the petitioner. PW9/Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P4) in presence of witnesses, recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and other witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, sent the two wheeler of the petitioner for motor vehicle inspection, conducted inquest on the body of the deceased and sent the body for postmortem. After collecting postmortem report (Ex.P6) and Motor Vehicle Inspection report (Ex.P5), charge sheet filed before the Trial Court. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, ten witnesses examined as PW1 to PW10 and six documents marked as Exs.P1 to P6. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of the trial, the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court as stated above and the same was confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though it was projected that statements of all witnesses (PW1 to PW10) recorded on 25.01.2013, it was sent to the Court belatedly along with the charge sheet. The Postmortem Doctor was examined on 12.02.2013 and the two wheeler involved in the accident produced on 11.02.2013 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector statement recorded on 12.02.2013. On the very same day, along with the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P6) and the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P5) charge sheet filed before the Trial Court. He further submitted that PW1/defacto complainant, brother of the deceased Saraswathi who is projected as eye witness to the occurrence, not seen the accident proper. PW1 states that at the time of accident, he was at the medical shop purchasing medicines which is located behind the bus stand and from there, the accident spot is not visible. The Rough Sketch (Ex.P4), proves that the medical shop is behind the bus stop and far away from the accident spot. PW1 further states that the accident took place at about 07.35 p.m in the dark and he could not identify even the colour of the vehicle. The Rough Sketch (Ex.P4), proves that the medical shop is behind the bus stop and far away from the accident spot. PW1 further states that the accident took place at about 07.35 p.m in the dark and he could not identify even the colour of the vehicle. In such circumstances, presence of P.W.1 is highly doubtful and PW1 could not have seen the accident. PW2, another brother of the deceased is an hearsay witness, he admits that it was PW1 who informed about the accident. PW3 is the husband of the deceased Saraswathi who was in Bangalore and he was informed about the accident. PW4, the other projected eye witness, admits not seen the accident. PW5 and PW6, the other projected eye witnesses to the accident admit that they are friends of the son of the deceased and according to them, the accident took place between 05.30 and 06.00 p.m. But PW1's statement is that the accident took place at about 07.30 p.m. There are contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1, PW5 and PW6. Further PW6 admits that he deposed in evidence at the request of his friend/son of the deceased. Thus, there are inconsistencies and inherent contradictions in the evidence of PW1, PW5 and PW6. 5.He further submitted that PW7, the other projected eye witness to the occurrence admits that he heard about the accident. PW8 and PW9, the witnesses to the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P4) admit that they signed the documents Exs.P2 & P4 in the Police Station not at the scene of occurrence. PW10 is the Investigating Officer through whom the FIR (Ex.P3), Rough Sketch (Ex.P4), Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P5) and Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P6) marked. In this case, the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Postmortem Doctor not examined, hence Exs.P5 and P6 cannot be considered in evidence. The Trial Court without considering these vital contradictions and lacunas in the prosecution case, convicted the petitioner. The Lower Appellate Court without independently assessing the evidence and materials, mechanically dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed for acquittal. The Trial Court without considering these vital contradictions and lacunas in the prosecution case, convicted the petitioner. The Lower Appellate Court without independently assessing the evidence and materials, mechanically dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction of the Trial Court. Hence, he prayed for acquittal. 6.In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the following decisions for the point that the witnesses admitted that it is a four road junction and also a busy market place where the vehicles cannot ply in high speed, hence the question of rash and negligence would not arise, further Motor Vehicle Inspection Report and Postmortem Certificate produced through the Investigating Officer is not proper and it cannot be said that these documents are proved in the manner known to law. 1. Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka reported in (1980) 1 SCC 30 . 2. Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab & Anr., reported in (2005) 6 SCC 1 . 3. R.Sridharan v. State by, The Inspector of Police, R-4, Pondy Bazar Traffic Investigation Wing, T.Nagar, Chennai-17 in Crl.R.C.No.424 of 2015, dated 15.06.2022 and another. 4. Mani v. The State rep. The Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigating Wing, Krishnagiri District reported in CDJ 2022 MHC 5034. 5. P.Selvaraj v. State represented by Station House Officer, Pudhuchathiram Police Station, Cuddalore District in Crl.R.C.No.888 of 2017. 6. P.Rajappan v. State of Kerala reported in 1986 Crl.L.J 511. 7. State v. Kuldeep Singh, dated 07.02.2020. 8. Mohanraj v. State by Sub Inspector of Police, Komarapalayam Police Station, Erode District in Crl.R.C.No.118 of 2018. 9. Arumugam v. State by Sub-Inspector of Police, Uttukuli Police Station, Erode District reported in 2001-2-L.W. (Crl.) 773. 10.Jerald v. State by Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram Taluk Police Station, Kancheepuram reported in 2001-2-L.W. (Crl.) 615. 11.K.K.Mani v. State rep. by Sub Inspector of Police, Thalaivasal Police Station, Salem District reported in (2009) 3 MLJ (Crl) 700. 12.N.Kinnaskandan v. State represented by, Inspector of Police, Bungalowpudur Police Station, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District in Crl.R.C.No.1118 of 2020. 13.Boopathi v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police, Mohanur Police Station, Namakkal in Crl.R.C.No.851 of 2021, dated 20.12.2024. 14.Kumaravel v. State rep by Inspector of Police, Namagiripet Police Station in Crl.R.C.No.1140 of 2014, dated 16.03.2022. 15.Subburam v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District reported in 2021 CDJ MHC 6783. 16.M.Subramani v. State rep. 14.Kumaravel v. State rep by Inspector of Police, Namagiripet Police Station in Crl.R.C.No.1140 of 2014, dated 16.03.2022. 15.Subburam v. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Dindigul Taluk Police Station, Dindigul District reported in 2021 CDJ MHC 6783. 16.M.Subramani v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Edapadi Police Station, Salem District reported in (2017) 1 L.W (Crl.) 160. 17.State of Karnataka v. Satish reported in (1998) 8 SCC 493 . 18.Puttaiah @ Mahesh v. State by Rural Police, Hassan represented by Public Prosecutor, High Court Building, Bangalore in Criminal Review Petition No.1317 of 2010, dated 04.03.2016. 19.Sankarapandiyan v. State by The Inspector of Police, Kancheepuram District reported in CDJ 2019 MHC 5962. 20. Srinivasan v. State rep.by Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Poice Station, Cuddalore District, Crl.R.C.No.1090 of 2020. 21.Surendran v. Sub-Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2021 SC 3197 . 22.George v. State of Kerala in SLP (Crl.) No.11041 of 2024. 23.Sukhdev Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (1982) 2 SCC 439 . 24.V.Kumar v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Komangalam Police Station, Coimbatore District reported in (2011) 1 MLJ (Crl) 500. 7.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police submitted that in this case, PW1 is the defacto complainant and eye witness to the accident taken place on 24.01.2023 at about 06.45 p.m. In the complaint (Ex.P1), PW1 narrated the accident that when he was in medical shop to buy medicines, at that time his sister/Saraswathi was proceeding to provision shop to buy groceries and when Saraswathi was crossing the road, the petitioner came in his two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner without switching on the headlight in the dark, dashed against Saraswathi and caused the accident. Due to which, Saraswathi sustained injuries. Immediately, PW1 called his brother/PW2 and informed about the accident. Both of them took the injured Saraswathi to the hospital where she was declared brought dead. On the next day, PW10/Investigating Officer received a complaint (Ex.P1) and FIR (Ex.P3) registered against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. On registration of FIR, PW10 visited the scene of occurrence on 25.01.2014, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P4), examined the witnesses present in the accident spot, conducted inquest and body was produced for postmortem. On the next day, PW10/Investigating Officer received a complaint (Ex.P1) and FIR (Ex.P3) registered against the petitioner for offence under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC. On registration of FIR, PW10 visited the scene of occurrence on 25.01.2014, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), Rough Sketch (Ex.P4), examined the witnesses present in the accident spot, conducted inquest and body was produced for postmortem. The vehicle of the petitioner was produced before the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection and the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P6) collected and the Postmortem certificate (Ex.P7) collected from the Postmortem Doctor and thereafter on conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed. The Trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court had rightly convicted the petitioner, hence he prayed for dismissal of the revision. 8.Considering the rival submissions and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that PW1 is the defacto complainant who lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to the respondent Police stating that on 24.01.2013 at about 06.45 p.m., when his sister Saraswathi went to a provision shop to purchase groceries near Rajalinga Nagar Bus Stand and PW1 was in the medical shop purchasing medicines, saw petitioner riding a bike coming in a rash and negligent manner from North to South in Chitoor-Katpadi Road without honking the horn and switching on the headlight dashed against his sister. In this case, the occurrence took place at about 06.45 p.m., but from Ex.P4/rough sketch, it is seen that there is no lamp post or any source of light. In the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), there is no reference to any availability of light. PW1 in his evidence admits that since it was dark at the time of accident and he could not identify the colour of the two wheeler involved in the accident. In such circumstances, PW1 could not have seen the accident. 9.PW2 admits that it is a four road junction and no vehicle can ply with high speed. PW3 is the husband of the deceased and he was in Bangalore at the time of accident. PW4 projected eye witness to the accident admits that he did not see the accident and PW5 is an another projected eye witness who took the injured to the hospital along with PW1. Both PW4 and PW5 admit that they are friends of Saranraj, son of the deceased. PW6 admits that on the request of Saranraj, son of the deceased, he deposed. Both PW4 and PW5 admit that they are friends of Saranraj, son of the deceased. PW6 admits that on the request of Saranraj, son of the deceased, he deposed. PW7 is the friend of PW1's brother. In this case, PW8 and PW9 are the witnesses to Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P4), both admit that they signed the documents in the Police Station. The only witness is PW1 who said to have seen the accident directly. PW1 admits that he was proceeding to the medical shop situated behind the bus stand away from the road and accident spot, from there he could not seen the accident. Added to it, PW1 admits that since the accident took place in the dark, he was unable to identify even the colour of the vehicle. PW1 admits that it is a four road junction always crowded and there is no possibility of riding the bike in a rash and negligence manner. In this case, admittedly, the Motor Vehicle Inspection report (Ex.P5) and the Postmortem Report (Ex.P6) marked through the Investigating Officer and not through the author of the document. 10.This Court time and again deprecated marking of these vital documents in a 304(A) IPC case through the Investigating Officer, and it would be appropriate that the author of the documents namely the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the Postmortem Doctor to be examined as witnesses. In this case, the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report (Ex.P5) and the Postmortem Report (Ex.P6) marked through the Investigating Officer. Moreover, all the witnesses in this case are relatives to the defacto complainant/PW1 and the deceased. Though it is a four road junction, no public examined. These vital discrepancies and contradictions not considered by both the Courts below. This Court finds the conviction of the petitioner not sustainable. 11.In view of the above, this Criminal Revision Case stands allowed setting aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi, dated 05.03.2019 in C.C.No.41 of 2013 and the judgment of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.A.No.34 of 2019, dated 25.02.2022. The petitioner is acquitted from all charges.