CRL RC/187/2022 of SELVAM Vs STATE REP BY on 25 September 2026

ORDER

The Criminal Revision challenges the Judgment passed in C.A.No.177 of 2019 dated 20.01.2021 on the file of the II Additional and Sessions Judge, Salem, confirming the Judgment in C.C.No.113 of 2013 dated 29.07.2019 on the file of the learned Judicial Magisgrate No.II, Sankari, holding the petitioner guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) (2 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentencing him to undergo one year of SI (each count) and to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- (each count) i/d to undergo one month of SI (each count) for the offence under Section 304(A) (2 counts) and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence under Section 338 of the IPC i/d to undergo one month of SI. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. No separate sentence was imposed for the offence under Section 279 of IPC.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 03.04.2013 at about 6.45 p.m., the petitioner drove his vehicle, i.e., a lorry bearing Reg.No.TN-28- AC-7530 in a rash and negligent manner and collided with a TVS XL vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN-52-E-0124 from behind and ran over two of the riders in the vehicle and caused their death and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

3. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.22 and marked 14 documents as Exs.P1 to P14. The petitioner neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents.

4. The Trial Court on the basis of the evidence, found that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent act of the petitioner and hence, held the petitioner guilty of the offences aforesaid. The Appellate Court confirmed the finding of guilt and the sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused by the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would vehemently contend that the witnesses cited by the prosecution, namely P.W.1 and P.W.2, who claimed to be eyewitnesses, are not eyewitnesses; that P.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that both of them reached the scene of occurrence after the accident; that P.W.4 who was the rider of the vehicle whose vehicle was hit from behind, could not have seen the vehicle of the petitioner being driven in a rash and negligent manner; that P.W.4 did not have licence to ride the vehicle; that four persons, including two children aged about four and 1 ½ years, respectively, had travelled in the vehicle; that the evidence discloses that there was a speed breaker at the place of occurrence, and hence it suggests that P.W.4 lost control and he, along with the deceased, fell down from the vehicle and was thereafter run over by the lorry; and that therefore, neither rashness nor negligence can be attributed to the petitioner for the occurrence. 6(a). Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent, who would submit that though P.W.1 and P.W.2 had admitted that they had not witnessed the occurrence, the evidence of P.W.4 and the manner in which the accident took place, is sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the offences; that the petitioner had caused the death of two innocent lives; and that there is nothing on record to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact rendered by the courts below.

(b) . He would further submit that there were tyre marks on the bodies of the deceased, thereby suggesting the rashness and negligence of the petitioner’s act.

7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner would be entitled to probation in terms of the Probation of Offenders Act, as the petitioner has no bad antecedents, and considering the nature of the evidence and the act of the petitioner.

8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions.

9. It is true that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 are not eyewitnesses. P.W.2 admitted in his cross-examination that both of them reached the scene of occurrence after the accident. However, the evidence of P.W.4 has not been discredited in any manner. Though it is stated by the petitioner that four people were travelling in the vehicle, i.e., two-wheeler, it is seen that two of them were infants one of whom was aged 4 years and the other 1.5 years.

10. It is also admitted by the prosecution that P.W.4 did not have a valid licence. But that by itself would not render the prosecution’s case that the petitioner/accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, doubtful. P.W.4 had deposed that the vehicle of the petitioner was driven in a rash and negligent manner. He has not been discredited in any manner. His evidence coupled with the manner in which the accident took place, suggests the rashness and negligence on the part of the petitioner. The two deceased, one of whom was an infant and the other a lady, were run over by the petitioner's vehicle. In fact, tyre marks were also found on their body. Therefore, this Court finds no infirmity whatsoever, in the concurrent findings of facts rendered by the Courts below.

11. However, considering the nature of the evidence, the age of the petitioner, and the other circumstances, this Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be met if the sentence imposed on the petitioner is reduced to six months SI (two counts) for the offence under offence under Section 304(A) (two counts) of IPC and the sentence imposed for the other offence is confirmed. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the petitioner shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

12. With the above modification in the sentence, the criminal revision stands dismissed. 25-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No

To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem.

2. The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sankari.

3. The Sub - Inspector of Police, Edappady Police Station, Salem District.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. dk CRL RC No. 187 of 2022 25-09-2026