CRL RC/1829/2024 of PERUMAL Vs THE STATE REP. BY on 29 September 2026

ORDER

The Revision challenges the Judgment passed in C.A.No.107 of 2022 confirming the Judgment passed in CC No. 609 of 2017 holding the petitioner

CRL RC No. 1829 of 2024

guilty of the offence under section 304(A) IPC and sentencing him to one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 23.03.2017, at about 2.30 p.m., the petitioner drove his Tata AC vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN 23 AE 6271 in a rash and negligent manner; that while taking reverse of the vehicle, he had hit the child of PW1, who was 1½ years old and caused grievous injuries on the head; and that the child subsequently, succumbed to the injuries on 24.03.2017. On the complaint given by PW1, a case was registered and a final report was filed under Sections 279 and 304(A) IPC against the petitioner.

3. The respondent had examined eight witnesses and marked Exts.P1 to P8 to prove their case. The trial Court found the petitioner guilty of the offence and sentenced him as stated above. The appellate Court confirmed the finding of guilt and sentence.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that PW1 to PW4, who are cited as eye-witnesses to the occurrence, are not eye witnesses; that PW1, PW3 & PW4 have admitted in the cross-examination that they were inside the house and after hearing the sound, they came out and saw the victim under the wheels of the petitioner's vehicle; that PW2 is an interested witness and his evidence does not suggest that the petitioner drove his vehicle in a rash

CRL RC No. 1829 of 2024

and negligent manner; that the child was left alone in the road and there was no way that the petitioner could see the child playing; and that in any case, the petitioner cannot be guilty of either rashness or negligence in the light of the evidence adduced.

5. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who would submit that the concurrent finding of facts do not warrant any interference inasmuch as the Courts below have believed the eye-witnesses to the occurrence and found that the petitioner was guilty of negligence and prayed for dismissal of the Revision.

6. Admittedly, PW1, PW3 and PW4 were not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. They admit in the cross-examination that they did not witness the occurrence and they came to the scene of occurrence only after hearing the sound. PW2 had stated that he witnessed the occurrence. He would, in his chief examination, state that the petitioner's vehicle ran over the child. This evidence is contrary to the medical evidence, which shows that the child sustained a head injury. There is nothing in the medical evidence to show that the child was run over. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 also does not inspire confidence.

7. That apart, it is seen from Ext.P4, the rough sketch, that the accident took place on the road outside the house of PW1. The evidence discloses that the child was unattended in the road. There is force in the submission of the

CRL RC No. 1829 of 2024

learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no way that the petitioner could have seen the child while taking reverse of the vehicle. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptable evidence to hold the petitioner guilty of the offences, this Court is of the view that the impugned Judgments are liable to be set aside.

8. Accordingly, the Revision is allowed and the Judgments of the Courts below are set aside. 29-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG To

1. The Inspector of Police, Vellore North (Law & Order) Police Station, Vellore District.

2. The Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court), Vellore, Vellore District.

3. The Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Vellore, Vellore District.

CRL RC No. 1829 of 2024

SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL RC No. 1829 of 2024 29-09-2026