ARULANANDHAM Vs. STATE
LAWS(MAD)-2022-6-213
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on June 13,2022

Arulanandham Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

EMPRESS OF INDIA V. IDU BEG [REFERRED TO]
R SAI BHARATHI VS. J JAYALALITHA [REFERRED TO]
JACOB MATHEW VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
SUSHIL ANSAL VS. STATE THROUGH CBI [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The Petitioner/acccused has preferred the above revision, challenging the Judgment passed in C.A.No.203 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, confirming the Judgment passed in C.C.No.56/2014 dtd. 11/11/2016 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kodumudi convicting the petitioner for the offences under Ss. 279 and 304-A of IPC. The Trial Court imposed a sentence of one year simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5000.00 in default, to undergo sentence of one month of Simple Imprisonment on the petitioner. The Trial Court did not impose any separate sentence for the offence under Scetion 279 IPC.
(2.)The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Kandaswamy was travelling from east to west on Muthur to Kodumudi road in a two wheeler TN 42 V 7431 on 3/6/2014 at about 9:00 PM. When the deceased was nearing Ramya Mahal on the said road, a heavy vehicle lorry bearing registration No. TN 04 AL 3762 came in the opposite direction; that the appellant had overtaken the said lorry in his Bajaj Pulsar vehicle bearing registration No. TN 33 AX 0211 and collided with the vehicle of the deceased who came on the correct side of the road; that due to the collision, the victim fell from his vehicle and to his right side, and the back wheel of the lorry ran over the victim and he died on the spot.
(3.)The prosecution had examined 10 witnesses on their side. Out of which P.W.1 and P.W.2 are said to be eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.1 was the employer of the deceased who was riding another two wheeler following the vehicle of the deceased. P.W.2 was accompanying P.W1 in the said two wheeler. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the father and mother of the deceased. P.W.5 is the witness to the Observation Mahazer. P.W.6 was the driver of the lorry. P.W.7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. P.W.8 is a Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the deceased, P.W.9 and P.W.10 are the Investigating Officers. Based on the evidence, the trial Court concluded that the petitioner had caused the death of the deceased by riding the vehicle in rash and negligent manner. The Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.