CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON : 26.11.2025

PRONOUNCED ON : 05.01.2026

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

Crl.R.C.No.74 of 2022

Sivakumar

S/o. Velu, No. 42/275, Sholayar

Estate, Sholayar, 3rd Division,

Valparai.

Petitioner/Accused

Vs

State Rep By

Inspector of Police,

Kinathukadavu Police Station,

(Crime No.143 of 2008).

Respondent(s)

PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 and 401 of

Cr.P.C. praying to set aside the judgment dated 16.04.2021 made in

Crl.A.No.306 of 2017 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge at

Coimbatore modifying the judgment dated 15.09.2017 made in C.C.No.272

of 2008 on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Pollachi, Coimbatore

District by allowing the above criminal revision.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan

For Ms.T.Lavanya Thirumalai

For Respondent : Mr.J.R.Archana

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

1/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

O R D E R

The petitioner/accused in C.C.No.272 of 2008 was convicted by the

trial Court by the judgment dated 15.09.2017 for offences under Sections

279, 337, 338, 304(A) of I.P.C. r/w Section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act (in

short ‘MV Act’) and sentenced to undergo one month simple imprisonment

for the offence under Section 279 of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo one month

simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C., sentenced to

undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 338

of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a

fine of Rs.9,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment

for offence under Section 304(A) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one

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

undergo two weeks simple imprisonment for offence under Section 184 of

M.V. Act. Aggrieved against his conviction, the petitioner, preferred an

appeal in C.A.No.306 of 2017 before the learned III Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The learned Sessions Judge, by the judgment

dated 16.04.2021, partly allowed the appeal confirming the conviction and

sentence of the petitioner for offence under Sections 279, 337 (3 counts),

304(A) of I.P.C. r/w 184 of M.V. Act and setting aside the conviction and

2/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

sentence for offence under Section 338 of I.P.C. against which, the present

revision is filed.

2.The gist of the case is that on 01.05.2008, the de-facto complainant

lodged a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Kinathukadavu Police Station

stating that on 01.05.2008 at about 12.00 noon he was riding his TVS XL

Super in Coimbatore to Pollachi road proceeding towards south to north side

and when he came near Mappillai Gounder Thottam, a Maruti 800 car

bearing Registration No.TN-38-AR-7175 was proceeding before him. At that

time, a Mahindra Maxi cab van came from north to south direction in a rash

and negligent manner and dashed against the Maruti 800 car and the

Mahindra van dashed against another TVS 50 bearing registration No.

TN-41-D-6139. The impact of accident was with force. The driver and the

occupants of the Maruti 800 car were seriously injured. With the help of

passersby, the driver of Maruti 800 car Vaitheeswaran, the co-occupants his

wife Sivagami and children Priya and Sriram all rescued and were taken to

Government Hospital, Pollachi, where the driver of the Maruti 800 car

Vaitheeswaran declared brought dead. The injured initially took treatment at

Government Hospital thereafter at Sakthi hospital. The petitioner is driver of

Mahindra Maxi cab van bearing Registration No.TN-58-B-0308.

3/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

PW1/de facto complainant lodged a complaint to PW12, who registered an

F.I.R. in Crime No.143 of 2008 for offence under Sections 279, 337, 304(A)

of I.P.C. r/w 184 of M.V. Act. PW14 took up investigation, examined the

witnesses, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar,

rough sketch, produced vehicle for Motor Vehicle inspection, conducted

inquest, sent the body for post-mortem and on his transfer PW13 took up

further investigation, examined the witnesses. In the meanwhile, on

06.05.2008, petitioner surrendered. The Motor Vehicle Inspector report

obtained, post-mortem report and other reports received and thereafter charge

sheet filed.

3.During trial, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW15 examined,

Exs.P1 to P10 marked. On the side of the defence, no witnesses examined

and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted

the petitioner as stated above.

4.The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the

prosecution failed to prove that the petitioner drove Mahindra Maxi cab van

in a rash and negligent manner. PW1 in his complaint not stated the petitioner

was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he is the reason

4/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

for the accident. In this case, all documents prepared in the police station. The

investigating officer conducted only a tabletop investigation. In this case,

F.I.R. reached the Court with inordinate delay, no reason given. Since one of

the occupants of the Maruti 800 car died, cause for the accident shifted on the

petitioner. In this case, the Motor Vehicle report of the Maruti 800 car driven

by the deceased not filed.

5.The petitioner’s specific contention is that the driver of the Maruti

800 car is the reason for the accident, who had treaded to the other side of the

road and caused the accident. The witnesses PW2/wife, PW3 and

PW4/children of deceased all admit that in the early morning at 6.00 a.m.

they left Coimbatore went to Palani temple, had Dharshan and they were

returning from Palani to Coimbatore. Due to the strain and tiredness, the

driver of the Maruti 800 car dozed off and caused the accident. In the absence

of Motor Vehicle report for Maruti 800 car, it cannot be conclusively held that

the petitioner is the cause for the accident. PW1 and other witnesses all admit

that the accident spot was on a slop. The Maruti 800 car was climbing the

slope and the Mahindra Maxi cab van was coming down on the opposite side.

It is the Maruti 800 car which lost control and caused the accident. Further in

5/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

this case PW2 not identified the petitioner. PW3 and PW4, the children

though claimed to have identified, they admit that they were sitting in the rear

side of the car, hence possibility of identifying the petitioner as driver of the

Van is doubtful. PW1 though claims that he was behind the Maruti 800 car,

riding his two-wheeler, not produced any document to show in which two

wheeler he was riding behind the Maruti 800 car. Since PW1 happens to be a

relative of deceased and PW2 to PW4, all related deposed against the

petitioner.

6.He further submitted that in this case, PW8 the other projected

eyewitness whose TVS 50 vehicle is said to have damaged in the accident

and claims he sustained injury, no medical records produced. The Motor

Vehicle Inspector/PW6, who examined TVS 50 two-wheeler, admits that no

documents for the two-wheeler and the license of the rider/PW8 produced for

inspection. One Ebinezer who is said to have travelled in the Mahindra Maxi

Cab van sustained injury he was neither examined as witness nor any medical

certificate produced. Though PW2, PW3 and PW4 claim that they sustained

grievous injury, no x-ray, scan report or any medical records produced. In this

case non production of the Maruti 800 car motor vehicle report is fatal to the

case of the prosecution. The other witnesses, namely, observation mahazar,

6/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

rough sketch witnesses all relatives to the deceased in this case. There are

contradictions in the evidence between PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4, which

was not considered both by the trial Court and the Lower Appellate Court,

prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

Hence, prayed for allowing the revision case, setting aside the conviction.

7.In support of his contention, the petitioner relied upon the judgment

of this Court in Crl.R.C.No.1137 of 2015 wherein it is held that in view of

vital infirmities even if the conviction to be sustained the jail sentence alone

can be set aside.

8.The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent

police opposed the petitioner’s contention and submitted that in this case

PW1 was riding a two-wheeler following the Maruti 800 car near Pollachi,

travelling in Coimbatore-Pollachi road from south to north. As the car and the

two-wheeler were nearing Mappillai Goundar Thottam, the Mahindra Maxi

cab van with Registration No.TN-58-B-0308 came in the opposite direction

from north to south, dashed against the Maruti 800 car and another two-

wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-41-B-6139. The driver of the Maruti

800 car Vaitheeswaran was travelling with his wife Sivagami and children

7/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

Priya and Sriram, all sustained injury and the petitioner, driver of Mahindra

Maxi cab van. The accident took place during bright day light at 12.00 noon,

all injured rushed to Pollachi Government Hospital. In the hospital,

Vaitheeswaran was declared brought dead. The others took treatment and

thereafter they took treatment at Sakthi Hospital. PW1 lodged a complaint to

PW12, who registered a case in Crime No.143 of 2008. PW14 took up

investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar

and rough sketch, recorded the statement of witnesses, conducted inquest,

sent the body for post-mortem and thereafter the vehicles were sent to Motor

Vehicle Inspector for inspection. The Doctor/PW11, who conducted post-

mortem, gave a report confirming the injury sustained by the deceased and

witnesses PW2 to PW4. The Motor Vehicle Inspector/PW5 confirms

accident was not due to any mechanical defect. The damage caused to the

TVS 50 also reported.

9.The learned Government Advocate further submitted that in this case

PW1 is a eyewitness, who saw the accident and along with passersby took the

injured to the Government Hospital, Pollachi and thereafter lodged a

complaint to PW12. The presence of PW1 cannot be doubted. Further, in this

case PW2, PW3 and PW4 travelling in the car got injured. PW2 clearly

8/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

narrated the accident, but unable to identify the accused for the reason she

fainted. PW3 and PW4, sitting in the car sustained injury both identified the

petitioner. All the four deposed the manner in which the accident took place.

The admitted position is that the accident spot was a steep gradient. The

Maruti 800 car was climbing the gradient and could not have approached the

spot in a rash and negligent manner. On the other hand, the petitioner’s

Mahindra Maxi cab van was coming down the gradient and it came in a rash

and negligent manner and caused the accident. The Motor Vehicle Inspector

report confirms the damage to the vehicles. The damage to the Mahindra

vehicle confirms that the vehicle sustained damages on the right side

confirming that it had treaded and crossed the middle of the road and caused

the accident. The observation mahazar and rough sketch prove that it is the

Mahindra van driven by the petitioner moved to the right side and caused the

accident. In this case the Lower Appellate Court rightly observed that the

Additional Public Prosecutor, who conducted trial before the Magistrate

Court failed to produce the motor vehicle report of the Maruti 800 car but for

his mistake the victim cannot be penalised and the petitioner cannot derive

any benefit since the eyewitnesses to the case deposed about the accident and

identified the petitioner.

9/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

10.Further, in this case, PW2 to PW4 are injured eyewitnesses. The

motor vehicle inspection report confirms the damage on the right side to the

vehicle. The Lower Appellate Court further finding that x-ray and scan report

confirming fracture and injuries of PW2 to PW4 not produced, altered the

conviction from Section 338 to Section 337 of I.P.C. He further submitted

that during trial, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW15 examined,

Exs.P1 to P10 marked. On the side of the defence, no witnesses examined

and no documents marked. Thus the Lower Appellate Court independently

assessed the evidence and materials and rightly confirmed the conviction of

the petitioner, hence, needs no interference. Therefore, prayed for dismissal

of the revision.

11.Considering the submissions made on either side and on perusal of

the material, it is seen that in this case PW1/de facto complainant is a

eyewitness. He was travelling behind following the Maruti 800 car saw the

accident. The Mahindra Maxi cab van driven by the petitioner was coming in

the opposite direction from north to south direction. The Maruti 800 car was

proceeding from south to north near Mappillai Goundar Thottam. In this case,

the driver of the Maruti 800 car and his wife/PW2 and two children/PW3 and

10/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

PW4 all travelling in the car. Immediately after the accident, PW1 with the

help of passersby sent the injured by Ambulance to the Government Hospital,

Pollachi. PW1 went to the hospital along with the injured. In the hospital, the

driver of the Maruti 800 car declared brought dead. PW1 lodged a complaint

to PW12/Sub Inspector of Police about the accident and a case registered.

PW14 took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared

observation mahazar, rough sketch, recorded the statement of witnesses. All

the witnesses in this case supported the case of the prosecution.

12.In this case, apart from PW1, PW2 to PW4 are the injured

eyewitnesses, who all deposed about the accident. It is not in dispute that the

accident spot was a steep gradient and Maruti 800 car was climbing the

gradient and Mahindra Maxi cab was coming down the gradient, naturally

gaining speed with poor visibility. The Mahindra van lost control, dashed

against the Maruti 800 car. The observation mahazar, rough sketch confirm

Mahindra Maxi Cab van crossed the middle of the road treaded to right and

caused the accident. The Motor Vehicle inspector report confirm the damage

to the van is on the right side. The injuries sustained by the deceased, causing

fracture and bones protruding out through the skin, all recorded, confirm the

impact and force of the accident related to high speed, rashness and

11/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

negligence of the petitioner. In this case, the eyewitnesses, post-mortem

report, medical records, Motor Vehicle Inspection report all confirm that

petitioner driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he is the

reason for the accident and caused death of the driver of the Maruti 800 car

and caused injuries to PW2 to PW4. In this case, the Lower Appellate Court

had observed, non production of marking of the motor vehicle inspection

report of Maruti 800 car is a mistake committed by the Additional Public

Prosecutor, for which the victim cannot be penalised, may not be proper.

Further, the petitioner questioned non-production of the document, whether

there was any mechanical defect in Maruti 800 car, not ruled out. The non-

production of the Motor Vehicle report of the Maruti 800 car would cause

some doubt in the prosecution case. Both the Courts below after analysing the

evidence and materials in detail had convicted the petitioner. In this case,

admittedly the Motor Vehicle Report for Maruti 800 car driven by the

deceased not produced. Further the place of accident is a steep gradient

having some difficulty in approach and visibility. Hence, there is semblance

of doubt the manner in which accident had taken place.

13.In view of the above, while confirming the conviction, the term of

sentence of one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section

12/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

279 of I.P.C., one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section

337 of I.P.C. (3 counts), two years simple imprisonment for offence under

Section 304(A) of I.P.C. and one month simple imprisonment for offence

under Section 184 of M.V. Act, all set aside. The fine portion of conviction

under Sections 279, 337 (3 counts), 304(A) of I.P.C. r/w 184 of M.V. Act

shall stand confirmed.

14. In the result, the Criminal Revision Case is partly allowed.

05.01.2026

Index: Yes / No

Internet : Yes/No

Neutral citation : Yes / No

Speaking / Non-speaking order

rsi

13/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

To

1.The III Additional Sessions Judge

Coimbatore.

2.The Judicial Magistrate,

Pollachi, Coimbatore District.

3.The Inspector of Police,

Kinathukadavu Police Station.

4.The Public Prosecutor,

High Court, Madras.

14/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL RC No. 74 of 2022

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

rsi

Pre-delivery order in

Crl.R.C.No.74 of 2022

05.01.2026

15/15 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis