BAIL SLIP The Appellant/Accused viz., E.Shahul Hameed, S/o. Ebrqhim, was directed to be released on bail as per the order of this court dated 17.4.2006 and made in CRL MP No.2533 of 2006 in Crl RC No.415 of 2006 on the file of this court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 25.3.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.R.C.No.415 of 2006 E.Shahul Hameed .. Petitioner/appellant/accused Vs. State rep. by its Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, J-2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai-20. (Cr.No.349/AM 3/2005) .. Respondent/respondent/complainant Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 3.4.2006 in Crl.A.No.300 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, against the judgment dated 22.7.2005 in C.C.No.4731 of 2005 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet, Chennai. For petitioner : Mr.N.Shanmugasundaram For respondent: Mr.S.Rajendiran, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) ORDER This Crl.R.C. is filed against the judgment dated 3.4.2006 in Crl.A.No.300 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 22.7.2005 in C.C.No.4731 of 2005 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate's Court, Saidapet, Chennai. 2. The skeleton of the case of the prosecution is as follows: On 23.6.2005 at 8 p.m., when the deceased along with his son Karthik/PW1 were proceeding in Durgabai Deshmukh Road from East to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ West, the revision petitioner/accused drove his vehicle with a pillion rider P.W.3 Mohammed Parvez was proceeding from South to North and he drove the two-wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased Murugesan and he sustained head injury and other injuries, and the accident was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3; immediately, he was taken to Malar Hospital, where first-aid was given and subsequently, he was admitted in Government General Hospital, Chennai, where P.W.10 Dr.Santhakumar treated him and issued Ex.P-6 accident register; he was declared dead on the same day at 11 p.m. by P.W.8 Dr.Gajendraraj, who issued Ex.P-4 death intimation. P.W.1, the son of the deceased, filed Ex.P-1 complaint before P.W.11 Ramachandran, Inspector of Police, J-2 Adyar Police Station and he registered a case in Crime No.349/AM3/05 for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and he also prepared Ex.P-7 FIR. P.W.11 then went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P-2 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.4 Krishnan and P.W.5 Ganesan and drew Ex.P-8 rough sketch. He also conducted inquest and prepared Ex.P-9 inquest report. P.W.9 Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle and gave Ex.P-5 report. After receipt of request from the investigating officer, P.W.7 Dr.Periasamy conducted post-mortem and issued Ex.P-3 post-mortem certificate. P.W.11 investigating officer then concluded the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and also under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The trial Court, after following the procedures, examined P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-10 and convicted the revision petitioner/accused for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and sentenced him to to six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and also imposed a fine of Rs.3,500/-, in default, to undergo four months' simple imprisonment, and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in default, to undergo two weeks' simple imprisonment, against which, the revision petitioner/accused preferred appeal before the appellate Court, which after considering the arguments of both sides, confirmed the judgment of 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 appearing for the revision petitioner/accused submitted that the deceased himself suddenly crossed the road on the middle of the road and the road is 100 feet width, and hence, there is contributory negligence by the deceased in the commission of the accident and therefore, learned counsel prayed for leniency in the sentence of imprisonment. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused relied on the evidence of P.W.3, the pillion rider of the two-wheeler involved in the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that the trial Court and the first https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ appellate Court have not considered these aspects in proper perspective and prayed for allowing the Crl.R.C. 5. Repudiating the said contentions, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-Police submitted that it is true that the road is running from South to North and as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, while they were crossing from East to West, the occurrence took place. The revision petitioner/accused drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident and he prayed for dismissal of the Crl.R.C. 6. Considering the rival submissions made by both sides, admittedly, P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are the eye-witnesses. P.W.3 was the pillion-rider of the vehicle, driven by the accused, and his evidence is not trustworthy, because, he is interested with the accused, and hence, no relevance could be placed on the evidence of P.W.3. 7. While perusing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, their evidence in chief and cross examination, is natural, cogent, trustworthy and convincing and hence, their evidence is reliable. 8. Furthermore, considering the rough sketch Ex.P-8, along with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, admittedly, the accident occurred when the deceased crossed the road while the vehicles on the road, were moving. Admittedly, at that time, he has not crossed on the pedestrian zebra crossing, and he suddenly crossed the road. At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.1, who in his evidence in cross-examination, stated that, @///rk;gt ,lk; ghjrhhpfs; flf;Fk; ,lky;y/ ghjrhhpfs; nuhil flf;fntz;Lkhdhy; g[jpajhf fl;lg;gl;Ls;s nkk;ghyk; moapy;jhd; te;J nuhil flf;fntz;Lk;///@ He further stated that, @////vd; mg;gh Kd;dhYk; ehd; gpd;dhYkhf xU mo tpj;jpahrj;jpy; ele;J brd;w bfhz;oUe;njhk;/ kj;jpa jLg;gpypUe;J xU mo J}uj;jpy; vd; je;ij brd;wnghJ rk;gtk; ele;jJ/ rk;gt nuhoy; vg;nghJk; thfd nghf;Ftuj;J kpFe;j rhiyahFk;/ eh';fs; brd;wnghJ rhiy fhypahfj;jhd; ,Ue;jJ/ rhiy fhypahf ,Ue;jjpdhy; eh';fs; ntfkhf rhiyiaf; fle;njhk;. tz;o !;nyhthf te;J gpd;dh; ntfkhf te;J vd; mg;ghtpd;kPJ ,oj;jJ///@ Considering the evidence of P.W.1 in his cross examination, the deceased also contributed for causing the accident. 9. It is now appropriate to consider the evidence of P.W.9 Chinnakannu, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who in his evidence, stated that if a driver of the vehicle drove the vehicle in 40 Km. speed, and if he applies speed-brake, the vehicle would station for 5 to 6 meters. He further stated that the vehicle would have over-turned. 10. It is pertinent to note that in the above said accident, the revision petitioner/accused also sustained injuries. So, at that time, the petitioner has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. Hence, I do not find any merits in the Crl.R.C. and the finding of the trial Court and the appellate Court that the revision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner/accused is guilty of the offences under Section 304-A IPC and Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is liable to be confirmed. 11. Now, this Court has to consider as to whether the petitioner is entitled for leniency in the quantum of sentence imposed by the Courts below. In this regard, it is worthwhile to notice a decision of this Court reported in 2011 (1) MLJ (Crl) 500 (V.Kumar Vs. State), wherein, it was held that, "contributory negligence can be considered as a mitigating circumstance at the time of awarding sentence to an offender convicted under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code." 12. While considering the said decision of this Court, I am of the view that the revision petitioner-accused is entitled for leniency in the quantum of sentence. It is seen that the revision petitioner/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 304-A IPC and was imposed six months' rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, and the same is hereby reduced to four months' rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount imposed in respect of the offence under Section 304-A IPC and also in respect of the offence under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, are confirmed. 13. For the reasons stated above: (a) The Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed. (b) The conviction of the revision petitioner/accused for the offences under Sections 304-A IPC and under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is confirmed. (c) The sentence of imprisonment imposed for the offence under Section 304-A IPC, is reduced from six months to four months' rigorous imprisonment. (d) The fine amount for the offences under Section 304-A IPC and also under Section 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is confirmed. (e) Since the revision petitioner/accused is on bail, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure his custody to undergo the remaining period of sentence. Sd/ Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar cs To 1. The Second Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. 2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai 3. The Fourth Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai-15. 4. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore Chennai https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5. Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation, J-2 Adyar Police Station, Chennai-20. (Cr.No.349/AM 3/2005) 6. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore 7. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 8. The Record Keeper, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Mr.N.Shanmugasundaram, Advocate, SR.21457 Crl.R.C.No.415 of 2006 CK (CO) RH (9.4.11) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/