Muthupandi vs State

2024 INSC 950 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. _________ of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 16486 of 2023)

MUTHUPANDI APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, NILAKOTTAI STATION, DINDIGUL RESPONDENT(s)

JUDGMENT

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the

judgment and order dated 05.06.2023 passed by the Madurai

Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. R.C. (MD) No. 583 of 2018.

The appellant stands convicted for offences punishable under Signature Not Verified Section 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code (for short Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date: 2024.12.10 12:40:26 IST Reason:

‘IPC’). The Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai under Section 279 1 IPC sentenced the appellant by imposing a fine of Rs. 1000/-. For

the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC, a sentence of one-year

simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed.

Appropriate default sentences were also imposed. Aggrieved, the

appellant challenged his conviction and sentence before the

Additional Sessions Judge, Dindigul who confirmed the

conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. On further

revision, the High Court, while maintaining the conviction,

modified the sentence to that of three months simple

imprisonment.

3. When the matter came up on 06.10.2023, the learned Judge

in Chambers exempted the appellant from surrendering till the

first date of hearing. The interim protection was extended on

06.11.2023. On 13.12.2023, the appellant offered to deposit an

amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) towards

compensation to the kin of the deceased. The statement was

recorded and the interim protection was extended. The amount

of Rs. 1,00,000/- since deposited is lying in the fixed deposit in 2 the court. Thereafter, the learned counsel for the appellant filed

an application to implead the legal representatives of the

deceased. The notice on the application has been served but no

one has entered appearance. We allow the said application and

implead the mother of the deceased as a party respondent.

4. We have heard Mr. A. Velan, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, learned counsel for the

State. We have perused the records.

5. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.01.2013, at about

05:15 AM, the deceased Karthik and PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3

were taking their cows for grazing. While they were proceeding

on the Nilakottai to Madurai road, near Karigalan petrol pump,

the appellant drove his lorry in a rash and negligent manner and

hit the cows as well as the deceased. In view of the mishap,

Karthik died and six cows were also killed. An F.I.R. No. 08 of

2013 dated 09.01.2013 under Sections 279, 304(A) of IPC read

with Section 4(1)(A) read with Section 21(1)(A) of the Mines

3 and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act was registered

since the prosecution had a case that river sand was being carried

illegally. The appellant has been acquitted for charges under the

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act.

6. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-17 and marked

Exh.P-1 to P-9. The trial court convicted the appellant which was

confirmed by the Appellate Court. The High Court in revision

only modified the sentence.

7. We have examined the evidence of the eye-witnesses and

they are consistent in their story that the appellant drove the lorry

in a rash and negligent manner and caused the death of the

deceased as well as the six cows. The witnesses have expressly

denied the suggestion that the cattle were running on the road

afraid of the light and Karthik had died due to the trampling of

the cows.

8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and

carefully perusing the records of the case, we see no reason to

4 interfere with the conviction under Sections 279 and 304(A) of

IPC imposed by the courts below.

9. However, we are inclined to allow the appeal partly on the

ground of sentence. The incident is of the year 2013. Eleven

years have elapsed since the incident occurred. The appellant has

been on bail throughout. It also emerges from the case of the

prosecution that the witnesses and the deceased were negotiating

about 70 cattle on the road. While we do not absolve the

appellant from the act of rash and negligent driving, we certainly

want to keep the above factors in mind while considering the

sentence. The appellant has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- to

be payable to the mother of the deceased who is the sole legal

heir. Though served, she is not appearing.

10. In view of the special facts of this case, while upholding the

conviction, we set aside the sentence of three months simple

imprisonment. We also set aside the fine of Rs.1,000/- for the

offence under Section 279 of IPC as well as fine of Rs. 5,000/-

5 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. Instead, while

maintaining the conviction, we order that the amount of Rs.

1,00,000/- deposited in this Court along with interest be paid to

Mrs. Ponnalaghu W/o Vellaisamy (mother of the deceased),

Ramar Kovil Street, M. Vadipatti Post Nilaikottai Taluk,

Dindigul, District 624211. This is on account of the loss suffered

by her on account of the act of the appellant and we pass this

order in exercise of powers under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C.

11. The amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- lying in the fixed deposit,

along with accrued interest in the registry of this Court will stand

transferred to the court of Principal District and Sessions Judge,

Dindigul. The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall direct

the respondent herein the Inspector of Police, Nilakottai Station,

Dindigul to reach out to the mother of the deceased as per the

particulars mentioned above. The Principal District and Sessions

Judge shall, after being satisfied about the identity, release the

amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with interest that has accrued to

the mother of the deceased.

6

12. The Principal District and Sessions Judge shall send

necessary information with regard to the compliance of the above

directions to the Registry of this Court.

13. Let the matter be listed in the last week of February, 2025

for reporting status on compliance.

14. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms.

………........................J. [B.R. GAVAI]

……….........................J. [K. V. VISWANATHAN] New Delhi;

December 10, 2024.

7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL No. _________ of 2024 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 16486 of 2023)

MUTHUPANDI APPELLANT(s)

VERSUS

STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, DINDIGUL STATION RESPONDENT(s)

*****

Dear Draft judgment in the above-mentioned matter(s) is sent

herewith for perusal and kind consideration.

With warm regards,

Yours sincerely,

(K.V. Viswanathan)

8 Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai

9