The Result: 5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur, in the judgment dated 25.03.2021 in C.C.No.25 of 2013, as confirmed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore district, in the judgment dated 13.04.2022 in C.A.No.37 of 2021, shall stand set aside. Any fine amount, paid by the petitioner/accused, is ordered to be refunded to them. 13.08.2025 Neutral Citation : yes grs To 1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore district. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur. 3. The Inspector of Police, Banavaram Police Station, Vellore District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J., grs Crl.R.C.No.997 of 2022 13.08.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Orders reserved on : 23.06.2025

Orders pronounced on : 13.08.2025

CORAM :

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

Crl.R.C.No.997 of 2022

Srinivasan .. Petitioner

Versus

The State Rep by,
The Inspector of Police,
Banavaram Police Station,
Vellore District. .. Respondent

Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 & 401 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment, dated 13.04.2022 made in C.A.No.37 of 2021 on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore district confirming the judgment and sentence imposed in C.C.No.25 of 2013, dated 25.03.2021, on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Sholinghur by allowing the Revision Petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.John Sathyan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.Jeremiah Gregory John

For Respondent : Ms.J.R.Archana,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side),
Asstd. by Ms.D.K.Amrutha

ORDER

A. The Criminal Revision Case:
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/ sole accused to set aside the judgment dated 13.04.2022 in C.A.No.37 of 2021 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore district, which confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur, in judgment dated 25.03.2021 in C.C.No.25 of 2013.

1.1. By that judgment, the Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur, found the petitioner/accused guilty of offences under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- with the default of one month Simple Imprisonment; under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code (3 counts), with a fine of Rs.500/- per count and default of one month Simple Imprisonment per count; and under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (4 counts), sentencing to six months’ Simple Imprisonment per count, a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and default of one month Simple Imprisonment, with the sentence to be served consecutively.

B. The Case of the Prosecution & Trial:
2. The case of the prosecution is that P.W.1, Vinayagamoorthy, came to the Banavaram Police Station at about 6.00 P.M on 23.05.2012 and lodged a complaint stating that he works for the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. On that day, at about 1.30 PM, from Kaveripakkam, they were transporting 12 electric poles in a tractor. When they neared Ponnappanthangal, near the paper company, the bolt that fastened the tractor and the trailer broke, causing the trailer to capsize. Of the seven people travelling in the trailer, three died instantly, and one died later in the hospital. The others also sustained injuries. The petitioner/accused, Srinivasan, was driving the tractor.

2.1. On the said complaint, a case was registered as Crime No.169 of 2012, and P.W.22 completed the investigation and submitted a final report proposing the petitioner/accused guilty of the offences under Sections 279, 337 (3 counts), and 304-A (4 counts) of the Indian Penal Code. The case was taken on file, and summons were issued to the petitioner/accused. After providing the copies and questioning, the petitioner/accused denied the allegations and stood trial.

2.2. To prove the case of the prosecution, Vinayagamoorthy was examined as P.W.1, who testified about transporting the electric poles, the bolt and trailer getting cut, the trailer capsizing, three persons dying at the scene, one dying in the hospital, and lodging Ex.P-1 at the Police Station. M.Rajendran, a Helper at the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, was examined as P.W.2; who stated that eight persons, including himself, were travelling in the trailer with poles when the incident occurred, resulting in deaths and injuries. M.G.Ramachandran, a Mazdoor at the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, was examined as P.W.3 and testified along similar lines as P.W.2. Kamaraj, examined as P.W.4, also a Mazdoor at the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board at that time, gave testimony aligned with P.W.2. P.W.5, Sathyaseelan, was a relative of one of the persons who died in the incident, but only heard about it. Thooyavendan, P.W.6, visited the scene 15 minutes after the accident and saw the capsized trailer. Murugesan, P.W.7, a relative of one of the deceased, also heard about the incident. Subramani, P.W.8, another relative of a victim, heard about the incident as well. Kalaivannan, P.W.9, gave a deposition similar to P.W.8. P.W.10, Munusamy; P.W.11, Gunasekaran; P.W.12, Mani; P.W.13, Manjunathan; P.W.14, Kumar; P.W.15, Palani; P.W.16, Murugan; and P.W.17, Kamaraj, are all either related to the victims or injured, heard about the incident, or visited the scene later. P.W.18, Babu, was a witness for the rough sketch and observation mahazar. P.W.19, Murugan, was a witness but turned hostile, stating he only signed. P.W.20, Kirubakaran, a relative of an injured person, heard about the incident, visited the hospital, and saw the injured. P.W.21, Dr.Selvaraj, conducted the autopsy of Gopal, one of the deceased. P.W.22, Mathiarsan, is the Investigating Officer.

2.3. On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint was marked as Ex.P-1. The signature of P.W.19 on the observation mahazar was marked as Ex.P-2. Ex.P-3, Ex.P-7, Ex.P-8, and Ex.P-9 are the autopsy reports of the four persons who died in the incident. The First Information Report is Ex.P-4. The rough sketch is Ex.P-5, and the observation mahazar is Ex.P-6. Ex.P-11 and Ex.P-12 are the wound certificates issued to the injured witnesses. Ex.P-13, Ex.P-14, and Ex.P-15 are the final opinions regarding the persons who died in the incident. Ex.P-16 is the inspection report by the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Thereafter, when the petitioner/accused was questioned about the evidence on record as per Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner/accused denied the evidence as false. No further evidence was presented on behalf of the defence side.

2.4. The Trial Court subsequently heard the parties and convicted the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 337 (3 counts), and 304-A (4 counts) of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing them as mentioned above. Aggrieved by this, an appeal was filed before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore district, in C.A.No.37 of 2021. After re-evaluating the evidence, the Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s judgment. Aggrieved by this, the present Revision Case has been filed before this Court.

C. The Arguments:
3. Heard Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, and Ms.J.R.Archana, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent.

3.1. Mr.R.John Sathyan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that this is a case where no rash and negligent driving is even alleged against the petitioner/accused. Absolutely, there is no evidence on record to prove any foundational fact. The officials of the Electricity Board insisted on loading the poles onto the tractor’s trailer. Unfortunately, the bolt snapped due to a mechanical fault, which was not caused by any omission or commission on the part of the petitioner/accused. None of the witnesses spoke about rash and negligent driving. In fact, the Trial Court misunderstood the situation, as if the petitioner/accused did not have a license. However, the petitioner/accused possesses a valid driving license, which was shown to the Court but not marked as a document because there is no charge that the petitioner/accused drove without the license. When the officials of the Electricity Board decided to overload and sent their staff, including pole men, line inspectors, and wiremen in the trailer, blame cannot be placed on the petitioner/accused, who was only an innocent driver, operating the vehicle with proper care. This was a simple accident, and there was absolutely no culpable act on the part of the petitioner/accused.

3.2. Per contra, Ms.J.R.Archana, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent, contends that this is a case where the petitioner/accused is the owner-cum-driver. He utilised the vehicle for his greed to overload – to transport electric poles. While doing so, by driving it rashly and negligently, the bolt snapped, and the petitioner/accused was solely responsible for causing the accident. The entire incident occurred in a manner that invokes the principle of res ipsa loquitur. Since the petitioner/accused was the driver, and as a result of his driving, four persons died and three were injured, the principle of res ipsa loquitur clearly demonstrates his culpable rashness and negligence. This was rightly established before the Trial Court and the Appellate Court confirmed the conviction based on a proper appreciation of the evidence, and there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the matter.

3.3. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ravi Kapur Vs. State of Rajasthan1, specifically referencing paragraphs 12 and 15 of that judgment. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would also cite the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Mohammed Aynuddin @ Miyam Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh2 for the principle that res ipsa loquitur applies, and the surrounding circumstances in the case would lead to the conclusion that the act of the petitioner/accused constitutes criminal negligence and culpable rashness.

D. The Discussion & Findings:
4. I have considered the rival submissions from both sides and reviewed the material records of the case. The point for consideration is whether there is any material flaw in the judgment of the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court that warrants interference by this Court through its revisional jurisdiction.

4.1. I have already referenced all the evidence on record. Before delving into the details regarding the liability of the petitioner/accused, whether the petitioner/accused, as the owner-cum-driver of the tractor, should be solely held responsible or if the blame also lies with the officials of the Electricity Board, it is important to note that the charge against the petitioner/accused is that he drove the tractor at high speed and negligently, which caused the bolt to snap. It is the prosecution’s duty to establish the foundational facts supporting this charge. None of the witnesses have testified about the vehicle being driven at high speed or rashly. There is no eyewitness to the accident. The only testimonies come from the injured witnesses who survived. Two of these witnesses only described the manner of the accident, specifically that the bolt broke. The other injured witnesses merely stated that they were sitting and chatting when suddenly, the trailer capsized. Only one witness attributed responsibility to the petitioner/accused for the accident, but even this witness did not testify to rash or negligent driving. Therefore, this case lacks evidence. None of the witnesses, even by way of assumption, has claimed that the petitioner/accused drove the vehicle rashly or with culpable negligence.

4.2. In this regard, the contention of the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the respondent is that the Court should apply the principle of res ipsa loquitur. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Ravi Kapur’s case (cited supra), the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur must be applied in two contexts. Firstly, to conclude that the accident, by its very nature, is consistent with being caused by negligence; applying the facts in this case, the accident by its very nature cannot be attributed to rash and negligent driving, but only to the act of loading 12 poles into the trailer. Secondly, the principle is to be applied in cases where the claimant can prove the accident occurred but cannot prove how it happened, which is not the factual scenario in this case. Therefore, it cannot be said that by applying the principle of res ipsa loquitur, it can only be concluded that it could have happened only due to rash and negligent driving of the accused, which is the charge.

4.3. The Trial Court, as well as the Appellate Court, have based their decisions on the ground that the tractor and the trailer were meant for agricultural purposes and should not have been used for transporting electric poles. Firstly, there is no record of any such evidence, nor was the charge framed on that basis and presented to the petitioner/accused for him to respond to. If such an allegation is specifically made, there was also scope for argument whether effecting an electricity service connection to a field would also be part of agricultural activity or not. It should be noted that there was no contract for work, and this person was merely engaged by the officials of the Electricity Board to transport the poles. They also traveled in the same trailer along with the electricity poles. The authority of the State does not provide for passenger vehicles for its employees to travel nor does it allow them to travel in a goods trailer as a routine practice, which has to be taken note of. Thus, for the finding of violation of rules, there was neither an allegation nor evidence on record. In this case, even the Motor Vehicle Inspector was not examined before the Court. In the absence of all these factors, the findings related to guilt appear to be perverse. Therefore, this is a suitable case for this Court to intervene through the power of revision.

E. The Result:
5. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner/accused by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sholinghur, in the judgment dated 25.03.2021 in C.C.No.25 of 2013, as confirmed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ranipet, Vellore district, in the judgment dated 13.04.2022 in C.A.No.37 of 2021, shall stand set aside. Any fine amount, paid by the petitioner/accused, is ordered to be refunded to them.

13.08.2025
Neutral Citation : yes
grs

To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Ranipet, Vellore district.

2. The Judicial Magistrate,
Sholinghur.

3. The Inspector of Police,
Banavaram Police Station,
Vellore District.

4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.

D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,

grs

Crl.R.C.No.997 of 2022

13.08.2025