MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN Crl.A.(MD).No.522 of 2019 Chellapandian … Appellant Vs. State represented by Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. (Crime No.256 of 2015) … Respondent
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On
:
09.12.2024
Pronounced On
:
15.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.522 of 2019
Chellapandian … Appellant
Vs. State represented by
Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
(Crime No.256 of 2015) … Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records in S.C.No.47 of
2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Paramakudi dated 04.10.2019 and set aside the same.
For appellant : Mr.K.R.Laxman
For respondent : Mr.M.Sakthikumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
The sole accused in Special Case No.47 of 2016 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Paramakudi, has filed this appeal challenging the judgment dated 04.10.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Paramakudi. In the said judgment, the learned trial Judge has imposed the following conviction and sentence:
Sl.No.
Offences Punishable Under Sections
Sentence of Imprisonment and fine
1
279 of IPC
To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo 1 month of simple imprisonment.
2
337 of IPC
To pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo 1 month of simple imprisonment.
3
338 of IPC
To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo 2 months of simple imprisonment.
4
304(A) of IPC
(3 counts)
To undergo 2 years of rigorous imprisonment (for each count) and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (for each count) in default to undergo 3 months of simple imprisonment (for each count)
2.On 27.10.2015 at about 06.10 pm., the appellant drove his share auto with more than 10 passengers in drunken state in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the on coming police van bearing registration No.TN-32-G-0134 on Madurai – kamuthi main road near the SSP Mahal at the outskirts of Pasumpon village. In result, three persons died on the spot and many other persons sustained injuries. Therefore, the respondent police registered the case for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304(ii) of IPC, in crime No.256 of 2015. The same was investigated and final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate kamuthi and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.10 of 2016. After the compliance of 207 Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram under Section 209(a) of Cr.P.C. After the committal proceeding, the same was taken on file in S.C.No.47 of 2016 and summon was issued to the accused. After his
appearance, the charges were framed and explained to the accused and he denied the same as false and he pleaded not guilty and he stood for trial.
3.The prosecution, in order to prove charged offences, had examined 21 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.21 and exhibited 19 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.19. No material object was produced.
4. The learned Trial Judge after completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him in the prosecution evidence and the documents and the appellant denied them as false. Then the case was posted for defence. But neither defence was examined nor defence document was marked.
5. The learned trial Judge, considered the entire evidence on record and acquitted the appellant under Section 304(ii) of IPC (3 counts) but convicted the appellant for the above stated offences by the impugned judgment dated 04.10.2019. Challenging the same, the appellant has filed this appeal before this Court.
6. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant:
6.1.P.W.1 alone was responsible for the accident and he drove his vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the appellant’s auto and hence, the auto capsized and in result, 3 persons died and number of other persons sustained injuries. The same is evident from the deposition of the prosecution witnesses themselves. The learned trial Judge has not properly considered the same and erroneously convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) (3 counts) of IPC.
6.2. The learned trial Judge has failed to consider the contradictory versions between the prosecution witnesses relating to the manner of the accident and erroneously convicted the appellant under Section 304(a) of IPC.
6.3.The learned trial Judge after acquitting the appellant under Section 304(ii) of IPC, has no justification to convict the appellant under Section 304-A of IPC without proof of ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 304-A of IPC.
6.4.The learned counsel submitted that there was a delay in preferring the complaint and also delay in sending the FIR to the Court. The said delay is material in this case, for the reason that the police officers in order to avoid the motor accident claims made a false case in a calculated manner by collecting false materials. Therefore, he seeks for acquittal.
7.Submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor:
The learned trial Judge has relied the evidence of the injured witnesses and the driver of the offending police vehicle and also considering the evidence on record that the appellant drove his vehicle in a drunken state rightly convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) (3 counts) of IPC. Section 304(A) of IPC is cognate offence and hence, the conviction under Section 304(A) of IPC is maintainable through the charge was under Section 304(ii) of IPC on the basis of the unimpeachable evidence of the injured witnesses and P.W.1 who have deposed that the appellant drove his auto in a drunken state with more than 10 passengers in the auto. Hence, he seeks for the confirmation of the impugned judgment.
8. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
9.There is no dispute about the involvement of the
appellant’s auto in the accident dated 27.10.2015 at 06.10 hours on Madurai – Kamuthi main road near the SSP Mahal at the outskirts of Pasumpon village. The only question is whether the appellant drove his auto in a drunken state with more than 10 passengers in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the oncoming police vehicle bearing registration No.TN-32-G-0134, driven by P.W.1. P.W.1 clearly deposed about the manner of the accident. He deposed that when he was proceeding towards the Pasumpon, the appellant drove his auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against right side of his vehicle and the auto capsized and in result 3 persons died and number of persons sustained injuries. His evidence is corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9, who was none other then the occupier of the said auto and his evidence is as follows:
NghyP]; tz;bapy; nfhz;L Ngha; tpl;L tpl;lhh;.
Ml;Nlh ftpo;e;J tpl;lJ.
10.P.W.8’s evidence is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.9 and he deposed as follows:
Ml;Nlhit Xl;ba M[h; vjphp ey;y
FbNghijapy; ,Ue;jhh;. Ml;Nlhit vjphp Xl;bf;nfhz;L tUk;NghJ Nfhl;ilNkl;bd; mUfpy; v];.v];.k`hy; mUNf tUk;NghJ Ml;Nlhit nfhzL; Ngha; NghyP]; tz;bapy; Nkhjptpl;lhh;.
11.P.W.8 and P.W.9 are the injured witnesses and they had no motive against the appellant and their evidence is also corroborated by the medical evidence and the doctor P.W.14 deposed that the police officer brought the accused at 07.00 pm., on the date of accident. His blood was taken and test was conducted and it was found that the appellant had consumed alcohol and the drunken certificate was marked under Ex.P6. He was subjected to the cross examination, but nothing was elicited to favour the accused. All these were considered by the learned trial
Judge and the appellant was convicted under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304(A) (3 counts) of IPC.
12.The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the conviction under Section 304(A) of IPC without charge is not maintainable is misconceived one. Charge was framed under Section 304(ii) of IPC against the appellant on the ground that he drove the vehicle in a drunken state and dashed against the on coming police vehicle with knowledge as required under Section 304(ii) of IPC. The learned trial Judge in an elaborate manner discussed in paragraph No.19 of the impugned judgment about the absence of the ingredients of Section 304(ii) of IPC and acquitted the appellant under the said chrage. But, the learned trial Judge considering the proved circumstances, that appellant drove his vehicle in a drunken state with more persons in the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the oncoming police vehicle and in result the auto capsized and therefore, the ingredients of Section 304(A) of IPC are clearly proved. Hence, the learned trial Judge is correct in convicting the appellant under Section 304(A) of IPC for the reason that Section 304(A) of IPC is cognate offence and also minor offence of 304 (ii) of IPC. It is settled principle in the event of failure on the part of the prosecution to prove the major offence, there is no bar to convict the accused under the minor cognate offence in the event of the proof of the ingredients of the said offence. Therefore, the said submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is liable to be rejected.
13.The menace of the accidents due to drunken driving can not be lightly dealt with. More particularly, in the case of the share auto. It is common knowledge that the auto drivers are driving the autos in a rash and negligent manner ie., driving the auto in a rash manner and abruptly stopping the vehicle in the middle of the road and driving in Zig Zag manner and hence, they are to be dealt with in a strict manner. More particularly, carrying more passengers than the permissible limit also is to be viewed seriously. Further driving the vehicle in drunken state is also to be viewed without any sympathy. Every driver is the custodian of the passengers and they have a duty to drive carefully. The present case is a typical case to show the appellant acted contrary to the rules of driving. He acted in total disregard to the public safety. Therefore, this Court feels that the appellant does not deserve for any reduction of sentence.
14.This Court time and again directed the Government Authorities to check the carrying of more persons in the share autos and also their manner of the driving. The Law Enforcing Authorities have not registered only minimum number of cases the case either under IPC and BNS or the Motor Vehicle Act. This
Court called report from the department and the department furnished the report under the following heading:
“Cases against share Autos in Relation to Accidents, Including Both Fatal and Non-fatal Accidents, overloading encompassing both passengers and goods and traffic violations”
From the year 2008 To 2024 (up to November)

Even the said data is alarming. But the Government is not taking cognizance of said alarming rate of violation and the
consequential loss of human life and hence, this Court issues the following directions to the Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Transport, Tamilnadu to curb the illegal act of the share auto drivers in carrying more persons than the legally permissible limit and to regulate the dangerous driving of drivers of share auto panicking every bystander, pedestrians and drivers of other vehicles violating all traffic Rules:
14.1. A suitable amendment in the Motor Vehicle Rules, is to be made to cancel the permit of the share auto.
14.2. To frame proper rule for seizure and confiscation of the share auto in the event of the dangerous driving and carrying more persons than the legally permissible limit.
15.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands dismissed in the following terms:
15.1. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi in S.C.No.47 of 2016 dated 04.10.2019 against the appellant is hereby confirmed.
15.2. The Bail bond executed by the appellant herein is hereby cancelled and the Court below is hereby directed to secure the appellant to undergo remaining part of sentence of imprisonment.
15.3. Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Transport, Tamilnadu is hereby directed to submit the follow up action report in the line of the above direction incorporated in Paragraph No.14 of this Judgement before this Court on or before
22.08.2025.
15.4. List the case for compliance on 22.08.2025.
15.05.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No Index :Yes/No
sbn
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Court, Paramakudi.
2. The Principal Secretary to the Government, Department of Transport, Tamilnadu
3.Assistant Superintendent of Police, Kamuthi Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section (Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN , J.
sbn
Crl.A.(MD).No.522 of 2019
15.05.2025
