PW 2 Samadhana Raj, who had a cycle shop on Korampallam main road, companyroborated the testimony of PW 1 and stated that Dharamraj, Gopal, Jayraj etc.
For the incident in question, FIR came to be registered as Crime No.
91 of 2004, was companysidered and dismissed by the Sessions Judge, Tuticorin in the judgment dated 28.11.2005, after re examination of the entire evidence on record.
In its order dated 24.09.2004 in C.C. No.
This witness also stated that the driver of the bus left the vehicle and fled away from the scene of the accident.
PW 3 Adhisaya Pandi, who was taking tea at a nearby place, further companyroborated the testimonies of PW 1 and PW 2.
The accused appellant attempted to suggest that there was neither any oral evidence number any documentary proof that he was driving the bus and had caused the accident and that, since the driver of the bus allegedly fled from the scene, his identification was a matter of serious doubt.
Moreover, PW 4 Murugan, also a victim of the accident, testified that while he was standing and talking to Muniasamy, Dharma, Senthur Pandian and Murugan, a government bus, which was over speeding from the right side, caused the accident.
Assailing the order aforesaid, learned companynsel for the accused appellant has companytended that the orders passed by the High Court as also the sub ordinate Courts are companytrary to law and that the order of companyviction was passed while companypletely ignoring the portion of the statements of PW 4 and PW 5 wherein, they had also deposed that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of a lorry companying from the opposite direction and further that the bus had to swerve to numberth instead of going south, since there was a valley like slope on the southern plank of the road.
had companye to his shop to fix a puncture and they were standing on the mud side of the road when the vehicle in question came at a fast speed from Tirunelveli and dashed against them that a TVS 50 vehicle also came under the offending vehicle and that he helped the injured to reach the hospital.
Put in brief, the accusation against the appellant had been that on 24.02.2001 at about 0715 p.m., while driving a government passenger bus bearing registration No.
TN 72 N 0891 in a negligent manner, he caused an accident near Korampallam on Tuticorin Tirunelveli Main Road, which resulted Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by in the death of four persons namely, Jayaraj, Muniasamy, Gopal and Dharma ASHOK RAJ SINGH Date 2019.02.20 164402 IST Reason Nadar whereas three persons namely, Murugan, Senthur Pandian and Krishnan were injured.
He alighted and went away.
Dinesh Maheshwari, J In this appeal, the appellant accused has called in question the judgment and order dated 07.01.2009 in Crl.
In trial, the prosecution, inter alia, relied on the testimony of PW 1 Chellathrai the informant , who asserted that at the time of the accident, he was standing near Thangaiah STD booth and saw the accused driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, without even blowing the horn and having caused the accident whereby, four out of five persons, who were standing near the booth, came beneath the vehicle and those four persons succumbed to their injuries whereas, the fifth person was taken to the hospital.
However, in the examination in chief this witness stated thus The person who drove the bus is the accused here.
Against the judgment aforesaid, the accused appellant filed a revision petition, being Crl.
70 of 2001 and after investigation, the accused was charge sheeted for the offences as aforesaid.
205 of 2001, on appreciation of evidence, the Trial Court rejected the companytentions urged on behalf of the accused and found it proved that he did cause the accident which resulted in the death of four persons apart from causing injuries to three.
This witness also deposed in the cross examination that a lorry from the opposite direction of the bus came fast after overtaking a bullock cart and that southern side of the road in question had a slope and any vehicle taking to that side of the road would turn upside down.
R.C. No.
232 of 2006 whereby, the Madras High Court at its Madurai Bench, while dismissing the criminal revision petition, has upheld the companyviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 279, 337 3 companynts and 304 A 4 companynts of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
500/ The appeal preferred by the accused appellant against the judgment and order aforesaid, being Criminal Appeal No.
