IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 20.4.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.R.C.No.1530 of 2008 A.Abdul Munaf .. Petitioner/Appellant/Accused Vs. State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Sub-Inspector of Police, Palacode, Dharmapuri District. .. Respondent/Respondent/Complainant Criminal Revision Case against the judgment dated 24.6.2008 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court (in- charge), Dharmapuri, against the order dated 11.4.2007 in S.T.C.No.193 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Palacode. For petitioner : Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal For respondent : Mr.S.Rajendiran, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER Crl.R.C. is filed against the judgment dated 24.6.2008 in Crl.A.No.12 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court (in- charge), Dharmapuri, confirming the conviction and sentence passed in S.T.C.No.193 of 2003 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Palacode. Dated 11.4.2007, whereby the revision petitioner/accused was found guilty of the offence under Section 279 IPC and was convicted and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment, and he was also found guilty of the offence under Section 337 (2 counts) IPC and was convicted and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo two weeks' simple imprisonment each. 2. The case of the prosecution is as follows: On 10.3.2002 at about 7.30 p.m., when P.W.1/complainant Mani and the injured/P.W.2 Rajendiran were coming in the bullock-cart loaded https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with sugarcane towards Palacode Sugarmill in Hosur-Palacode National Highway, and when they were reaching Madhampatti Bus Stop, at that time, the revision petitioner/accused drove the Government Bus in a rash and negligent manner and came behind the bullock-cart and dashed against the bullock-cart and so, P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. Immediately, they were admitted in Government Hospital, Palacode, where P.W.5 Doctor treated them and issued Exs.P-2 and 3 wound certificates. P.W.8 Head Constable received the intimation Ex.P-5 from Palacode Government Hospital and he recorded the complaint Ex.P- 1 and registered a case in Cr.No.140 of 2002 for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC and prepared Ex.P-6 FIR. On 11.3.2002 at about 8 a.m., P.W.8 went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-7 observation mahazar and drew rough sketch Ex.P-8 in the presence of witnesses. At 9 a.m., he arrested the accused and sent the vehicle for Motor Vehicle Inspector's inspection and the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector is marked as Ex.P-4. P.W.8 sent the file for further investigation and P.W.9 Sub-Inspector of Police took the case for further investigation and he examined the other witnesses and recorded their statements and obtained Exs.P-9 and P-10 wound certificates of bulls. He concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 (2 counts) IPC. 3. The trial Court, after following the procedures, furnished the copies of documents to the revision petitioner/accused, who raised a plea and since the revision petitioner/accused pleaded not guilty, the trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and marked Exs.P-1 to P- 10 and considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court fund the revision petitioner/accused guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 (2 counts) IPC and convicted and sentenced him as stated above, against which, he preferred appeal before the first appellate Court, which confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, against which, the present Crl.R.C. is filed by the revision petitioner/accused. 4. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts below, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 are the eye-witnesses and they turned hostile. There is contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. There is contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence and he prayed for setting aside the judgments of conviction passed by both the Courts below. 5. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that the injured eye-witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2's evidence is natural, cogent, convincing and trustworthy and hence reliable. Their evidence has clearly proved the guilt of the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Section 279 and 337 (2 counts) IPC. Further, P.W.5 Doctor's evidence has also clearly proved that P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained simple injuries. Both the Courts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ below correctly held that the revision petitioner/accused is guilty of the offences. Further, the trial Court considered the official capacity of the revision petitioner/accused and since he is a driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, only fine amounts were imposed. He prayed for dismissal of Crl.R.C. 6. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, and also the oral and documentary evidence, admittedly, P.Ws.1 and 2 are the injured eye-witnesses. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 turned hostile. It is well settled principle of law that even the evidence of a sole interested and related eye-witness is reliable, provided the evidence is natural, cogent, convincing and trustworthy. So, this Court is duty bound to consider the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and whether their evidence is reliable. On a perusal of the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is seen that they are corroborating with each other and there is no reason for discarding their evidence, since their evidence is natural, cogent and trustworthy and hence, it is reliable. 7. Considering the facts of the case, on the fateful day, i.e. on 10.3.2002 at about 7.30 p.m., when P.Ws.1 and 2 were coming in the bullock-cart, loaded with sugarcane and proceeding to Palacode Sugarmill, at that time, the bus came behind them in a rash and negligent manner without horn and dashed against the bullock-cart, as a result of which, P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.5 Doctor, who treated them and issued Exs.P-2 and P-3 wound certificates. So, there is no contradiction between the ocular evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the medical evidence of P.W.5 Doctor who issued Exs.P-2 and 3 wound certificates. So, I am of the view both the Courts below considered this aspect in proper perspective and came to the correct conclusion that P.Ws.1 and 2 have sustained simple injuries in the accident. Furthermore, the evidence of P.W.7, the Motor Vehicle Inspector and his report Ex.P-4, have clearly proved that the accident has not occurred due to any mechanical defect. So, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 clearly proved that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the revision petitioner/accused. Both the Courts below correctly held that the revision petitioner/accused is guilty of the offence under Section 279 IPC. 8. During the course of accident, P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained simple injuries, which is evidenced by Exs.P-2 and 3 wound certificates issued by P.W.5 Doctor. So the revision petitioner/accused is also guilty of the offence under Section 337 (2 counts) IPC. 9. Therefore, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the conviction imposed by both the Courts below. I concur with the findings of both the Courts below that the revision petitioner/accused is guilty of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 (2 counts) IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 10. At this juncture, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the revision petitioner/accused is working as Driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and he was awarded fine amounts of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 279 IPC and Rs.500/- each for the offence under Section 337 (2 counts) IPC. If the fine amount awarded is more than Rs.1,000/-, it would lead to the termination of his services in the Transport Corporation and his family would be put into peril and hence, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused prayed for reduction of the fine amount imposed on him. 11. Considering the said submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner/accused, since the revision petitioner/accused was convicted for both the offences under Sections 279 and 337 (2 counts) IPC, there is no need to impose the fine for the offence under Section 279 IPC. So, while confirming the conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 279 IPC, the fine amount awarded for the same, is hereby set aside. The conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 337 (2 counts) and the fine amount of Rs.500/- each, are confirmed. 12. In the result: (a) Crl.R.C. is partly allowed. (b) The conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 279 IPC is confirmed and the fine amount of Rs.1,000/- awarded for the same is set aside. (c) The conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 337 (2 counts) and the fine amount of Rs.500/- each, are confirmed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs To 1. Principal Sessions Court (in-charge), Dharmapuri. 2. District Munsif-cum-sJudicial Magistrate, Palacode. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. Sub-Inspector of Police, Palacode, Dharmapuri District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 5. The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal, Advocate, SR.27574 Crl.R.C.No.1530 of 2008 kj(co) pmk.3.5.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/