1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14.10.2015 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B. RAJENDRAN CRL. RC. No. 14 of 2010 and MP.No.2 of 2010 Palanisamy .. Petitioner Versus State represented by Inspector of Police Mallur Police Station Salem District .. Respondent Petition filed under Sections 397 read with 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in C.A.No.122 of 2009 dated 15.12.2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions (Fast Track Court 1) Salem and confirming the conviction and sentence imposed in C.C.No.127 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem dated 07.10.2009 and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu For Respondent : Mr.V.Arul Government Advocate (Crl.side) 2 ORDER On the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant/P.W.1, namely, Rajendran, a case in Crime No. 34 of 2005 was filed against the accused/ the petitioner herein for the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304 (A) of IPC. After investigation, final report has been filed and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.127 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem. After trial, the trial court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304 (A) IPC and sentenced him to undergo six months Simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC and to undergo two years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. Against which, the accused has filed Crl.A. No. 122 of 2009 before the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order passed by the first appellate Court, the petitioner/accused has filed the present Criminal Revision Case. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 28.2.2005, at 3 about 6.45 a.m., the accused, who was driving his lorry bearing Registration No.TDY 8577 in a rash and negligent manner from Salem towards Namakkal in the Salem - Namakkal Main Road near Mallur Government High School, dashed against Mr.Ramanaicker, the deceased, who was walking on the left side of the main road near the house of Advocate Kandasamy. As a result of which, the said Ramanaicker sustained multiple injuries and died. In this context, the defacto complainant/P.W.1 had given a complaint based on which the accused was proceeded with for the offences as mentioned above. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not argue on merits but confined his argument only on the question of sentence imposed on the petitioner by the courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a driver and if sentence of imprisonment is imposed on him, it will affect his entire family. The learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is not having any previous case and that he is the sole bread winner of the family and he has to take care of his children. The learned counsel also submits that the deceased was aged about 80 years at the time of accident and he was shortage 4 of sight and without noticing the lorry coming in the opposite direction, the deceased tried to cross the road and thereby, the accident had occurred. It is submitted that the petitioner is repenting his misdeeds and is also willing to pay some compensation to the family members of the deceased. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for showing leniency in reduction of sentence. 4. Learned Government Advocate submitted that due to rash and negligent driving of the lorry by the accused/petitioner, the accident had occurred. However, the learned Government Advocate admits that the petitioner is not having any previous case. It is submitted by the learned Government Advocate that nowadays, death are increasing due to these type of accident and, therefore, the Courts below have rightly convicted the petitioner. It is also submitted by the learned Government Advocate that leniency has already been shown by the Courts below by imposing minimum punishment on the accused. Therefore, the learned Government Advocate prayed for dismissal of the revision. 5 5. I have heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent State and perused the materials on record. 6. The trial court convicted the petitioner/accused for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304 (A) I.P.C and sentenced to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 279 IPC and to undergo two years simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 304(A) IPC. 7. On a careful perusal of the entire evidence, it is clear that the petitioner has committed the offence under Section 279 and 304 (A) IPC and the same has been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. But now the petitioner contends that he is the sole bread winner of the family and if sentence of imprisonment is imposed on him, it will affect his entire family. Now, the petitioner is also willing to pay some compensation to the family of the deceased. But, mere compensation will not compensate the death of the person. 6 8. However, taking into consideration the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that the deceased was aged about 80 years at the time of accident and that the accident had occurred while he was crossing the road and that the petitioner is the sole bread winner of the family and that he is not having any previous case and that he voluntarily agreed to pay some amount towards compensation, I am of the view that instead of sending him jail, he may be directed to pay some amount as compensation. 9. Accordingly, while confirming the conviction imposed by the Courts below, the sentence is modified to that payment of compensation of Rs.25,000/-. The petitioner shall deposits a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) towards compensation to the credit of C.C.No.127 of 2005 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Salem, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the trial Court shall hand over the said amount to the family of the deceased, on proper identification. It is also made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the compensation amount within the time stipulated by this Court, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. 7 With the above modification in sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 14.10.2015 ga Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No To 1. The Judicial Magistrate No.6, Salem 2. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. 8 B. RAJENDRAN, J ga CRL.RC.No. 14 of 2010 14.10.2015