This criminal revision has been preferred seeking to set aside the judgment dated 02.03.2013 passed in Crl.A. No.245 of 2011 by the V Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore, confirming the judgment dated 19.10.2011 in C.C. No.69 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Palladam.http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2 Shorn of the minute details, the facts necessary and germane for the disposal of this criminal revision are as under:2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 07.03.2008, around 5.45 p.m., the petitioner, who was driving a tempo van bearing Regn.TDI 6984 from West to East in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against one Revathy, resulting in her passing away.2.2 On the complaint lodged by Devi (P.W.1), the sister of the deceased Revathy, the respondent police registered a case in Cr.No.187 of 2008 and after completing the investigation, filed final report against the petitioner in C.C. No.69 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam, for the offences under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.2.3 On the appearance of the petitioner, he was furnished with the copies of the relied upon documents under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the Trial Court framed charges against him under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC.When questioned, the petitioner pleaded 'not guilty'.2.4 To prove their case, the prosecution examined six witnesses and marked seven exhibits.When the petitioner was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same.http://www.judis.nic.in 3 2.5 The Trial Court, after considering the evidence on record, by judgment dated 19.10.2011, convicted and sentenced the petitioner as under:Provisions under which conviction was Sentence made One year simple imprisonment and fine of 304-A IPC Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment 2.6 Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred Crl.A. No.245 of 2011 in the Court of Session and the same was heard by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.II), Coimbatore and was eventually dismissed on 02.03.2013, questioning the legality and validity of which, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision before this Court under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.P.C.3 Heard Mr. Kumarasamy, learned counsel representing Mr.The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of Devi (P.W.1), Revathy's sister.6 Devi (P.W.1) has stated that Revathy is her younger sister; on 07.03.2008, she and Revathy were going by walk from East to West to Angaliamman Temple; at that time, they saw a tempo van coming in the opposite direction at a high speed; seeing the said tempo van, they tried to move to the left side of the road; yet, the tempo van hit them both, due to which impact, Revathy was thrown a little away; they were taken to R.V.S. Hospital and were given first aid; from there, they were sent by an ambulance to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore, where, Revathy was declared brought dead; she gave a complaint (Ex.P.1) to the police.7 In the cross-examination, Devi (P.W.1) has stated that she suffered injuries on her right hand, for which, she took treatment in Maavani Hospital in Rasipalayam.She has admitted in her cross- examination that she stated in her complaint that the van first hit them and thereafterhttp://www.judis.nic.in capsized, after hitting a compound wall of a company nearby.It 6 was suggested to her that she was not there at the time of accident and that when her sister Revathy suddenly crossed the road without noticing the tempo van approaching towards her, the accident had occurred, which suggestion she denied.As per the evidence of P.W.1, they were walking along a village road from East to West direction.The road runs East to West.Vehicle was on the opposite direction.As observed by the Trial Court, the left side for the child will be on the South.The left for the accused on the side of the north.But from the sketch it is seen that the accident took place on the extreme southern edge of the road portion.Because it is within his special knowledge as to what prompted to him to go the extreme southern road portion leaving his direction.Absolutely there is no explanation.” The aforesaid reasoning of the lower Appellate Court cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse.9 Mr. Kumarasamy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the identity of the petitioner has not been established, inasmuchhttp://www.judis.nic.in as Devi (P.W.1) has not stated that the petitioner was on the 7 wheels when the accident occurred and hence, the conviction and sentence made by the Courts below are liable to be set aside.In this regard, he placed reliance on the following judgments:In fact, Thirumeni (P.W.4), Inspector of Police, has stated in the chief-examination that on 19.03.2008, at 10.30 a.m., the petitioner himself voluntarily surrendered before the police and he was placed on arrest.In the upshot, this criminal revision stands partly allowed.

Sections cited: Section 279 in The Indian Penal Code, Section 304A in The Indian Penal Code