Bail Slip The Appellant/Accused Namelly K. Ravi S/o. Kuppusamy was directed to be release on bail as per the order of this Court dated 31.8.2006 made in Crl Mp.1/06 in Crl Rc 977/06 on the file of this Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:18.6.2009 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA Crl.R.C.No.977 of 2006 and M.P.No.1 of 2006 K.Ravi ... Petitioner vs. The State rep.by Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal District ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 23.8.2006, passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Namakkal in C.A.No.114 of 2005, confirming the judgment dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Salem passed in C.C.No.416 of 2004. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Selvakumar for Mr.A.Ramalingam For Respondent : Mr.Hasan Md.Jinnah,A.P.P. O R D E R Challenging and impugning the order dated 23.8.2006, passed by the Additional District Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, in C.A.No.114 of 2005, confirming the judgement dated 16.11.2005 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Salem, in C.C.No.416 of 2004, this criminal revision case is focussed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this civil revision petition would run thus: The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 338 (4 counts), 304(A) (two counts). After complying with the procedures and formalities, trial was concluded. Ultimately, the trial Court convicted the accused for the following offences and imposed the following sentence. Case No. Offence Punishment imposed C.C.416/2006 279 IPC Fine of Rs.600/- in-default, 2 months R.I. 338(4 counts) IPC Fine of Rs.500/- to each count in de-fault, 1 month R.I. For each count 304(A)(2 counts) IPC 1 year R.I for each count and fine of Rs.3000/- for each count, in de-fault 3 months R.I. 3. As against the conviction and sentence, C.A.No.114 of of 2005 was preferred before the Additional District Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Namakkal, which Court partly allowed the appeal by modifying the sentence only, but confirming the conviction as under: Case No. Offence Punishment imposed C.C.416/2006 279 IPC Fine of Rs.600/- in-default, 2 months R.I. 338(4 counts) IPC Fine of Rs.500/- to each count in de-fault, 1 month R.I. For each count 304(A)(2 counts) IPC Six months R.I for each count and fine of Rs.3000/- for each count, in de-fault 3 months R.I. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the order of the learned Sessions Judge, this revision is focussed on various grounds, the gist and kernal of them would run thus:- Even though no independent witness was examined on the side of the prosecution, nonetheless, the trial Court believed the version of the driver of Maruthi Van and other prosecution witnesses. The appellate Court also failed to see that in the front portion of Omni Van only two persons were expected to sit, but including the driver three persons were sitting at the time of the accident. As per Ex.P12-the sketch, the bus was standing on the left side of the road, whereas, the Omni Van found hit on the tree. As such, Ex.P12 disproves the evidence of P.W.6. There is delay in lodging the FIR, as the accident took place at 3.45 p.m. on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 17.9.2003 but only at 7.00 p.m. the FIR was lodged at the police Station, which was only 4.00 K.M. away from the place of occurrence. Accordingly, the revision petitioner prays for setting aside the judgement of both the Courts below and for acquitting the accused. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or illegality in appreciating the evidence by the Courts below in finding the revision petitioner herein guilty of the offence under Sections 304(A) (2 counts), 338(4 counts) and 279 IPC. 6. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner/accused would invite the attention of this Court to the relevant portion of the judgement of the lower Court and argue that P.W.5 was sitting on the right side of the driver and that itself would speak volumes as to how the driver was incapacitated from driving the Omni Van freely. 7. From the perusal of the judgement as well as the deposition of P.W.5, no such inference could be drawn that P.W.5 was sitting on the right side of the driver, so to say between the door and the right side of the driver. Hence, it is just and necessary to extract hereunder, the relevant portion of the deposition of P.W.5. @/ / / / / / / / / ehd; oiuth; rPl;ow;F gpd; gf;fk; tyJ gf;fk; cl;fhh;e;J ,Ue;njd;/ / / / / @ 8. Ofcourse, the Magistrate, in the judgement stated as though P.W.5 was sitting at the right side of the driver in a cryptic and confusing manner, which the revision petitioner cannot rely upon and try to make a mountain out of mole hill. 9. The judgements of both the Courts below would display that there is application of mind on the part of both the Courts below in scanning and appreciating the evidence and based on the cogent evidence of the witnesses on the prosecution side, they arrived at the conclusion that the driver of the bus, namely, accused was at fault. 10. However, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner took pains to invite the attention of this Court to Ex.P.12-the Sketch and thereby tried to highlight that if at all the occurrence had taken place in the manner the prosecution witnesses narrated, certainly, there would have been no possibility of the Omni van proceeding forward and thereafter coming in contact with the tree and that too, when the bus was standing on the left side of the road. P.W.5 once again in his deposition spelt out that the driver of the Omni Van tried his level best to avoid the accident by even moving towards the mud portion of the road, even then the bus https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ dashed as against the right side of the Omni van and caused the accident. The learned counsel for the petitioner would try to point out that the other witnesses have not detailed and delineated the accident in the manner P.W.5 had narrated. 11. It is a common or garden principle that witnesses may not be unison in narrating the occurrence. P.W.5 in a detailed manner narrated as to how the occurrence took place, whereas the other witnesses in a brief manner described the incident that the bus dashed on the right side of the Omni van and caused it to move forward to some extent and dash as against the tree. 12. At this juncture, my mind is reminiscent and redolent of the following well settled proposition of law that the revisional Court, while exercising its jurisdiction may not be justified in re-appreciating the evidence unless there is glaring perversity in the judgement of both the Courts below in appreciating the evidence. 13. To the risk of repetition, without being tautalogous, I would like to point out that here in this case, both the courts below took pains to advert to the various portions of the evidence on the prosecution side and correctly held that the fault was on the part of the driver of the bus. I even suo mottu considered as to whether had been any contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Omni Van because both the vehicles were coming on the opposite direction and the accident took place. No doubt, I am fully aware of the legal position that if there is head on collision between two vehicles, contributory negligence is possible. 14. However, in this case, there is no head on collision, but the bus come in contact with the right side of the Omni van and thereafter, the Omni van proceeded further and dashed as against the tree. More over, the driver of the Omni Van attempted to avoid the accident, but because of the rash and negligent driving of the State Transport bus driver, the accident occurred. As such, I could see no perversity or illegality on the part of both the Courts below. 15. Coming to the aspect of substantive sentence, the trial Court awarded one year imprisonment cumulatively, taking into consideration the fact that there occurred two deaths and four grievous injuries in the accident. The Sessions Judge, by taking a considerate and compassionate view reduced the substantive sentence to six months. Over and above that, this Court cannot reduce the sentence ignoring the fact that there are two deaths and four grievous injuries resulted due to the accident. Hence, I could see no merit in the revision and consequently, the same is dismissed. 16. In the result, the criminal revision case is dismissed. The lower Court is directed to issue warrant to the revision https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner on receipt of a copy of this order, so as to secure his presence and commit him to jail in order to make him to undergo the sentence, if he had not already undergone. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Msk Sd/- Asst. Registrar /true copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1. The Additional District Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Rasipuram, Salem 3. -do- Through,Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem. 4. The Inspector of Police, Rasipuram Police Station, Namakkal District. 5. The Superintendent, Central prison, Coimbatore. 6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court. Crl.R.C.No.977 of 2006 VSN (CO) EU 23.7.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/