Udhagamandalam. J. - (1.)ANIMADVERTING upon the order dated 25.04.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam, in C.A.No.5 of 2007, confirming the judgment and order of conviction dated 22.02.2007, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Udhagamandalam, in STC No.843 of 2003, this criminal revision is focussed.
(2.)COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus:
The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. as against the accused for the offences under Sections 279, 304(A) and 338 IPC on the ground that the accused was driving the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-N-4905 along Kudalur Main Road near Kamaraj Dam towards Ooty, so to say from north to south direction, in a rash and negligent manner and at that time, the driver of the lorry dashed the lorry as against the said motor cyclist and caused his death and caused grievous injuries to the pillion rider.

Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, trial was conducted. During trial, on the prosecution side, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the accused.

Ultimately, the trial Court recorded the conviction and imposed the sentence as under: ----------------------------------------------------------------- Case No. Offence Punishment imposed ----------------------------------------------------------------- STR No. U/s 304(A) IPC Three months R.I. 843 of 2003 U/s 338 IPC One month R.I. (Sentence to run concurrently) -----------------------------------------------------------------

Animadverting upon such judgment of the lower Court, C.A.No.5 of 2007 was filed for nothing, but to be dismissed, confirming the judgment of the lower Court.

Challenging and impugning the judgments of both the Courts below, this revision has been filed on various grounds, the warp and woof of them would run thus:

The judgments of both the Courts below would evince that the Courts have not taken into consideration that no negligence on the part of the accused was attributed by any of the witnesses examined on the prosecution side. In proper perspective the oral and documentary evidence have not been analysed by the Courts below. The lower Court found as though the lorry was coming downwards, when in fact it was not so. The lorry was going upwards in that hill area. In the absence of clear proof to show that the accused was rash and negligent in causing the accident,the Courts below were not justified in finding him guilty. Accordingly, he prays for setting aside the order passed by both the Courts below.

(3.)THE point for consideration is as to whether there is any perversity or non-application of law in rendering judgments by both the Courts below.
The learned counsel for the revision petitioner inviting the attention of this Court to various parts of the evidence would set forth and put forth his argument to the effect that the lorry was negotiating upwards and in such a case, he could not have been rash and negligent as it is obvious and axiomatic; however, without taking into consideration this basic principle, both the Courts below simply jumped to the conclusion that the driver of the lorry was at fault. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the deceased rider of the motor cycle was not having driving licence and hence, both the Courts below were not justified in mulcting the accused with criminal liability.