Madras High Court
State Represented By vs Shri S.Karnan on 16 December, 2021
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
CBI, ACB, Chennai. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Shri S.Karnan,
S/o. Late Subba Thevar
2. Shri Pachaiannan,
S/o. Late Chenniappan
3. Shri P. Senthil Kumar,
S/o. Shri Pachiannan ... Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment dated
17.05.2012 pronounced by Ld. IX Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Chennai in C.C.No. 3 of 2008.
Page No.1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
For Appellant : Mr.K.Srinivasan,
Special Public Prosecutor
For Respondents : M/s.C.S.S.Pillai
Maruthiraj for R1
M/s. V.Udayakumar
B.Ramya for R2 & R3
ORDER
Against the order of acquittal of respondents passed in C.C.No.3 of
2008 dated 17.05.2012 on the file of IX Addl. Special Judge for CBI Cases,
Chennai, the appellant CBI, ACB is before this Court with this Appeal.
2. Totally, there are three accused. The accused 1 to 3 were charged
with for the offence under Sec.120-B r/w 420, 511, 468 I.P.C. and
Sec.13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Trial
Court, after full-fledged trial, acquitted all the three accused. Now,
challenging the acquittal, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
3. The case of the prosecution is that, A1 was working as Sub-
Inspector of Police at Koovathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District
between June 2001 and December 2002. On 21.12.2001 at about 06.30
p.m., one P.Venkatachalam, an employee of M/s.Cummins Diesel Sales and
Services India Limited, returning from Pondicherry to Chennai, in a two
wheeler, and at Veppenchery near Mamallapuram, he had dashed his two
wheeler against a stationery lorry bearing Regn. No.MSV 8007, and
sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. On the next day at about
08.10 a.m., the Regional Manager of the company, in which the deceased
was working, had filed a complaint before the Koovathur Police Station,
Kancheepuram, wherein 1st respondent/A1 was working as Sub-Inspector of
Police. Based on which, a F.I.R., in Crime No.421 of 2001 has been
registered for the offence under Sec.279 and 304(A) I.P.C. After completing
investigation, he has filed a final report on 14.03.2002 against P.W. 1
(Approver) in this case on the ground that, he was the owner cum driver of
lorry bearing Regn. No. TN-04-B-1656, while overtaking the stationery
lorry, he dashed against two wheeler of deceased and caused his death.
P.W.1 appeared before the Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
admitted his guilt, and he was convicted and imposed with a fine of
Rs.3000/- and he has also paid the fine on the very same day. Later on, A2
and A3, father and brother of deceased along with mother of deceased, filed
a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No. 725 of 2002 before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Salem, seeking compensation of Rs.96 lakhs for the death
of said Venkatachalam in the road accident. During the pendency of the
claim petition alleging that it is a fake claim, and the lorry owned by P.W.1
was not involved in the accident, the insurer of the lorry requested DIG,
CBCID, Chennai to reinvestigation about that case. Based on the request,
an investigation was ordered and it was transferred to District Crime
Branch, Kancheepuram, the same was also re-registered in Crime No. 8 of
2005 and District Crime Branch took up investigation. Pending
investigation by D.C.B., the insurance companies approached this Court
seeking for direction to direct CBI to investigate into large number of fake
insurance claims including the present case. This Court by an order dated
22.12.2006 transferred the investigation to C.B.I. Based on that direction,
the appellant CBI, ACB took up investigation.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
4. The reinvestigation by CBI revealed that the deceased
Venkatachalam, while driving motorcycle dashed against stationery lorry
bearing Regn. No.MSV – 8007, and sustained injury and died on the spot.
Thereafter, A2 and A3 approached P.W.1, and convinced him to falsely
implicate his lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-04-B-1656 enabling them to file a
claim petition seeking compensation. Accepting their request, P.W.1
approached the 1st respondent, and A1 to A3 hatched a conspiracy, in
furtherance of the same, A1 has prepared a false inquest report on
21.12.2001 stating that the deceased, to avoid hitting a stationery lorry,
swerved to a right, and he was hit by the lorry driven by P.W.1. which is
coming in the opposite direction, and sustained injury and died on the spot,
and filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Thirukalukundram. In furtherance of the above said criminal conspiracy, A2
and A3 filed a claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.96 lakhs before
MACT, Salem. However, P.W.1, owner of the lorry had given a statement
under Sec.164(1) Cr.P.C. admitting his guilt and stated that he had falsely
implicated himself as accused and paid the fine at the request of A2 and A3.
After recording statement of P.W.1, the learned Judicial Magistrate tendered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
pardon on 10.12.2007 under Sec.306 Cr.P.C. After completing
investigation, the appellant C.B.I. filed the final report. Considering those
materials, the trial court taken cognizance of offence, and framed charge as
mentioned above.
5. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 22
witnesses and marked 57 exhibits. Out of 22 witnesses examined, P.W.1,
owner cum driver of lorry. According to him, at the request of A2 and A3, in
order to help their family to get compensation, he has falsely implicated
himself as accused and paid the fine amount. P.W.2, who said to be present
nearby the scene of occurrence. According to him, after hearing noise, he
found motorcycle dashed against stationery lorry and the deceased died on
the spot. P.W.3, driver of stationery lorry bearing Regn. No.MSV-8007,
according to him, while he was coming back from Pondicherry to Chennai,
his lorry was broke down and when he was sitting near the lorry, at that
time, he heard a noise from back side of lorry, wherein he found deceased
with serious injuries. P.W.4, who is a partner of M/s.M.Arunachalam and
company and he is owner of stationery lorry bearing Regn.No. MSV-8007.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
P.W.5 is the partner of the firm by name M/s.Power Care Solutions and
doing work such as servicing of diesel generators. P.W.6 is the Proprietor of
M/s.Jothi Vinayaga Auto carriage. According to him, he was informed that
the lorry bearing Regn.No.MSV-8007 was broken down near Pallar bridge
and he was asked to get the lorry repaired. P.W.7 is the Advocate, who was
appearing for the accused in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Salem.
P.W.8 is a Head Constable working at Koovathur Police Station, and he has
made entry regarding the accident in the general diary. P.W.9 is the Auto
Spare Parts dealer at Chennai, wherein owner of stationery lorry asked him
to send some spare parts.
6. P.W.10 is the Regional Manager of M/s. Cummins Diesel Sales and
Services India Ltd., wherein the deceased was working as Engineer. P.W.11
is the co-employee of the deceased. P.W.12 is working as Head Constable
at Koovathur Police Station and he has maintained the records and made
entry about the accident in the general diary maintained in the police
station. P.W.13 is running a travels company at Mahabalipuram, who
helped P.W.10 in writing the complaint. P.W.14 is working as Divisional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
Manager in the insurance company, who spoke about the filing of Writ
Petition seeking for reinvestigation by CBI and as per the order of this
Court, the case was transferred to CBI. P.W.15 is working as Assistant
Manager in United India Insurance Company. He has spoken about the
request made by them for reinvestigation. P.W. 16 is working as Judicial
Magistrate at Chengalpettu, who has recorded the statement of P.W.1 under
Sec.164 of Cr.P.C. P.W.17 is the Inspector of Police, Kalpakkam. He has
spoken about the earlier F.I.R. registered by A1. P.W.18 is the Licensed
Insurer of the Insurance Company. P.W.19, who was working as Zonal
Deputy Tahsildar and he has issued the residential certificate of A3.
P.W.20, was working as Principal Scientific Officer in the Central Forensic
Lab, Chennai. He has examined the forged document. P.W.21, is a Judicial
Magistrate recorded the statement of one Sivam under Sec.164 of Cr.P.C.
P.W.22 is the Investigating Officer, who has conducted the investigation and
filed the final report.
7. The incriminating materials are put to the accused under Sec.313
Cr.P.C. and they denied the same. The accused have not examined any of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
witnesses or marked any of documents. Considering all those materials, the
trial court acquitted all the accused from all the charges. Challenging the
order of acquittal, the present appeal has been filed before this Court.
8. Heard submissions of both the learned counsel appearing for
appellant and respondents and perused the material carefully.
9. A1, in this case was the Sub-Inspector of Police, in Koovathur
Police Station, who has conducted the investigation about the accident. A2
is father of deceased. A3 is brother of deceased. P.W.1 Mariappan, who
turned as approver, is the owner-cum-driver of the lorry bearing Regn.
No.TN-04 B-1656. It is the case of prosecution that the deceased riding IN
a two wheeler, dashed against stationery lorry, bearing Regn. No.MSV-8007
and died. Thereafter, all the accused conspired together and in furtherance
of the conspiracy, they have approached P.W.1, and convinced him to
falsely implicate himself as accused in the said road accident as if his lorry
was involved in the accident, enabling him to gt compensation. Accepting
their request, PW.1 has admitted his guilt and paid fine. Thereafter, he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
appeared before the Judicial Magistrate and given a statement under
Sec.164(1) Cr.P.C., wherein he has stated that, his lorry was not involved in
the accident, and he was compelled to implicate himself as accused in this
case, pardon was granted to him and he was treated as approver.
10. The prosecution mainly relying upon the statement of P.W.1
(approver) and implicated all the accused for the above said offence. The
accident was taken place on 21.12.2001. Immediately A1 rushed to scene of
occurrence, and commenced investigation, and conducted inquest, in which,
registration number of P.W.1's lorry has been mentioned, and clearly stated
that while deceased overtaking a stationery lorry, P.W.1's lorry came in the
opposite direction and dashed against the deceased. According to P.W.1, A2
and A3 approached him in the month of January 2002, during Pongal
festival and asked him to implicate himself in the accident. Only thereafter,
he admitted his guilt and paid the fine. Even though some of the witnesses
present during the inquest, disowned their signature, the trial court has held
that the prosecution did not conduct any investigation to compare their
signature by sending it to the expert. That apart, it is not the case of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
prosecution that fine amount has been paid by A2 and A3, it is only P.W.1,
who has paid the fine amount on his own, which creates some suspicion.
The Trial Court, considering all those materials, came to a conclusion that,
the evidence of P.W.1, approver is not trustworthy and it cannot be relied
upon.
11. So far as other witnesses are concerned, P.W.2 and 3, who are
said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence. Even though both of them
were available at the time of accident, from their evidence, it could be seen
that they are not eye-witnesses to the occurrence and both of them have
admitted that after hearing the noise, they came out and saw that bike was
lying under the stationery lorry. In the said circumstances, the trial court
come to a conclusion that P.W.2 and 3 are not eye-witnesses to the
occurrence, and their evidence cannot be considered to hold that the
deceased dashed against stationery lorry. Even though P.W.2 and 3 have
stated that at the time of accident, there was no other vehicle plying in that
road, to substantiate the same, the prosecution has not taken any steps to
collect the particulars regarding vehicle passing through the scene of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
occurrence at the time of accident. So far as conspiracy theory is concerned,
absolutely there is no materials available on record to show that A1, who is
Inspector of Police has conspired with A2 and A3 and created false records,
thereby committed the offence. Apart from that, the trial court after
considering materials, has held that the prosecution has failed to establish
how the accident has taken place. The Trial Court after considering all those
materials extensively came to a conclusion that, the prosecution had failed
to prove the charges levelled against the accused and consequently acquitted
all the accused.
12. It is settled principal of law that, after securing an order of
acquittal, there is double presumption occurred in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the fundamental principle of criminal justice delivery system that,
every person, accused of committing an offence shall be presumed to be
innocent, unless their guilt is proved by a competent Court of law. Secondly
if the accused has secured an order of acquittal, the presumption of their
innocence is reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. Even if two
reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence on record, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the acquittal recorded by
the trial Court.
13. The Trial Court after considering the entire evidence, both oral
and documentary extensively, came to a conclusion that the prosecution
failed to prove the charges and acquitted the accused. In the above
circumstances, I find no illegality or perversity in the judgment of the trial
Court and there is no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed
by the trial Court. Hence, the appeal fails and the same is deserves to be
dismissed.
14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of
the trial Court in C.C.No.3 of 2008 dated 17.05.2012 is hereby confirmed.
16.12.2021
rpp
To
1.Inspector of Police,
CBI, ACB, Chennai.
2. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.669 of 2012
V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.
rpp
CRL.A.No.669 of 2012
16.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
