The revision petitioner is the accused in C.C.No.329 of 2004 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi. He was tried for the offence under Sections 279 , 337 , 338 and 304-A IPC. 1/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010

(iii) In conclusion of trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, by its Judgment dated 14.03.2008, found the revision petitioner guilty, convicted and sentenced him as follows:

months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month.

U/s.304-A IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Aggrieved over the same, the revision petitioner filed an appeal before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in C.A.No.67 of 2008, wherein, the appellate Court, by its Judgment dated 19.06.2009, confirmed the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Revision Case has been filed before this Court.

3. This Court, vide order dated 13.04.2010, admitted this case and ordered notice to the respondent State. Thereafter, this case was taken up for final disposal on 10.08.2011 and from then, it was periodically 3/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010 adjourned either on the request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner or on the ground of no representation for the revision petitioner. When this revision petition was listed before this Court on 08.07.2020, once again, there was no representation for the revision petitioner and therefore, the case was posted under the caption “For Dismissal” on 09.07.2020 and on that day, Mr.S.Selvakumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner represented that he is held up in his native place and therefore, he sought two weeks' time to proceed with the revision petition and at his request, the case was posted on 20.07.2020. On 20.07.2020, once again, time was sought for filing written submission and therefore, the case was posted on 28.07.2020 finally and on that day, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner argued that there was a delay in reporting the incident and the Accident Register was not marked before the trial Court. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that the occurrence had taken place in a Highway and when P.W.2/victim along with the deceased were travelling in a motorcycle, the revision petitioner, who was driving a lorry, came in a rash and negligent manner and caused fatal injury to the deceased and grievous injury to P.W.2; the delay in reporting the incident was sufficiently explained by the prosecution and in this case, though the Accident 4/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010 Register of the deceased was not marked, the postmortem certificate has been marked and the cause of death has been explained by P.W.7, who conducted the Postmortem. He further submitted that the Accident register of P.W.2 was marked before the trial Court and normally, in the case of death, the Accident Registers are not marked before the trial Court. At that moment, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner sought for a short accommodation to work out the possibility of solving the issue by paying some compensation to the victims family. Therefore, at the request of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the case was posted to 12.08.2020. On 12.08.2020, the learned counsel Mr.S.Selvakumar sought further time of two weeks on the same ground and therefore it was adjourned to 26.08.2020. Since there was no representation on the subsequent hearings, this Court appointed one Mr.R.Ramasamy, Advocate, (Enrl. No.1256/2005) who is having a bar standing about 15 years of experience in criminal side, as Legal Aid Counsel, to represent the revision petitioner. Thereafter, at the request of learned counsel Mr.R.Ramasamy, two more adjournments were granted and Mr.S.Selvakmar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, did not make any efforts to represent the case.

5/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010

4. Learned Counsel Mr.R.Ramasamy representing the revision petitioner submitted that the Accident Register of the deceased was not marked and P.W.7-Dr.Aathimoolam stated that the death was not caused due to the accident and P.W.3-Mohaideen, an eye-witness, stated before the Court that both the Lorry as well as P.W.2 came in a rash and negligent manner and there is a contradictory evidence as to whether the deceased, at the time of occurrence, was riding a motorcycle or travelling in a motorcycle and therefore, the prosecution, according to him, has not proved its case beyond any reasonable doubt and therefore, this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be allowed.

5. Per contra, Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), by referring the rough sketch [Ex.P9] submits that at the time of occurrence, the revision petitioner, who was driving the lorry bearing Reg.No.TN U 996, was proceeding from South to North and he has to drive his vehicle in the western side of the road, but, the accident took place on the eastern side of the road, which shows that the revision petitioner was driving his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner on wrong side and hit on the victims, who were travelling in the motorcycle at the time of occurrence, due to which, the deceased and P.W.2 were 6/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010 thrown away and since the deceased sustained head injuries, he succumbed to the injuries and P.W.2 sustained fracture on his right leg. P.W.1 and P.W.3, who were also travelling in the said highway, have witnessed the occurrence, set the law in motion and narrated the incident before the Court. The Doctor, who conducted autopsy, gave his final opinion that the death was due to the head injuries, though he stated in his cross examination that this head injury would not be possible due to an accident. Further, the non-marking of wound certificate is not a material ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and in this regard, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in a case of Chandrasekar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu .

6. This Court paid its anxious consideration to the rival submissions made.

7. The revision petitioner was charged before the trial Court for the offences under Sections 279 , 337 , 338 and 304A IPC. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, convicted the revision petitioner for the offence under Sections 279 , 338 and 304A 7 / 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010 IPC and sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved over the same, appeal in C.A.No.67 of 2008 preferred by the revision petitioner was also dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.

8. The revision petitioner is a lorry driver and at the time of occurrence, he was driving the lorry bearing Reg.No. TN U 996 on Madurai to Tenkasi Road. P.W.2 and the deceased were travelling in a motorcycle bearing No.74B 2303 on the opposite direction. P.W.1 and P.W.3 were also travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.TN76U9696 on the same road at the time of occurrence on 14.04.2004 at 11.15 a.m. P.W.1 and P.W.3 are the eyewitnesses to the occurrence and they have clearly stated about the occurrence. P.W.1 and P.W.3 took the deceased and injured to the Government Hospital, Kadayanallur and they were referred to the Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital at Palayamkottai, but, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the way to Hospital. On receiving information from the Hospital, P.W.11-Constable of Kadayanallur Police Station went to the Hospital, recorded the statement of P.W.1 and registered the case in Cr.No.514 of 2004. P.W.15-Inspector of Police visited the place of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar 8/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010 and rough sketch and seized the lorry and also subjected the lorry for examination. P.W.12, the Motor Vehicle Inspector, examined the lorry and gave his certificate that there was no mechanical defect, however, the front portion of back side mudguard was found damage in the vehicle bearing Reg.No.TN U 996.

9. The Doctor [P.W.7], conducted autopsy on the dead body and he noted down two head injuries and another injury on the right leg and gave his opinion that the deceased died on account of the head injuries. P.W.8 is the Doctor, who examined the victim-P.W.2 and P.W.2 has sustained fracture on both bones of his right leg and the wound certificate is marked as Ex.P3. P.W.13 is the Doctor, who took x-ray for the fracture of P.W.2. However, P.W.7, P.W.8 and P.W.13 were not examined by the accused.

10. Appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court as well as the appellate Court rightly found the revision petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 279 , 338 and 304-A IPC, convicted and sentenced as stated supra. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the Judgment of the Courts below.

9/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010

11. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed. The Judgment dated 19.06.2009 made in C.A.No.67 of 2008 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, is hereby confirmed. Bail bonds executed by the accused/revision petitioner at the time of suspension of sentence shall stand cancelled and the trial court is directed to take necessary steps to secure the custody of the accused and commit him to prison to undergo the remaining portion of the sentence imposed on him. The period of incarceration, if any, already undergone by the accused during the course of investigation shall be set off in terms of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

24.09.2020 ogy Index : Yes/No. Internet: Yes/No. Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

10/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010 To

1. The Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur Police Station, Tirunelveli District.

2. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi.

3. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.

11/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010 B.PUGALENDHI, J.

ogy Crl.R.C.(MD)No.277 of 2010 24.09.2020 12/11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/