Madras High Court
S.Anand vs The State Rep. By on 10 November, 2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Orders Reserved On Orders Pronounced On
25.02.2020 10.11.2022
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
S.Anand ... Petitioner/A-3 in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.280/2018
K.Subramanian @ A.K.Subbu ... Petitioner/A-1 in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.281/2018
Pakkirisamy ... Petitioner/A-2 in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.64/2019
Vs.
The State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Special CBI, ACB, Chennai.
FIR No.RC 34(A)/2006 ... Respondent
in all revisions
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petitions filed under Sections 397
and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records relating to the
judgment made in C.A.Nos.8 & 15 of 2014 respectively dated 28.02.2017 on
the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Court,
Tiruchirappalli confirming the judgment made in C.C.No.6 of 2007 dated
30.12.2013 on the file of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
For Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.280/2018 : Mr.M.Ramesh
For Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.281/2018 : Mr.C.Muthusavaranan
For Petitioner in
Crl.R.C.(MD).No.64/2019 : Mr.R.Maheswaran
For Respondent
in all revision petitions : Mr.N.Nagendran
Special Public Prosecutor
for CBI Cases
COMMON ORDER
These Criminal Revisions arise out of judgment from the common
Calender Case in C.C.No.6 of 2007.
2. The petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.281 of 2018 is A-1, petitioner in
Crl.R.C.No.64 of 2019 is A-2 and petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.280 of 2018 is
A-3. There are totally three accused in this case. All the accused were
convicted in C.C.No.6 of 2007 by a judgment of Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli dated 31.12.2013.
3. The petitioner/A-1 filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.15 of 2014 and
petitioners/A-2 & A-3 filed an appeal in Crl.A.No.8 of 2014. The II
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by a separate
judgment dated 28.02.2017 dismissed the appeals of the petitioners
confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Against
which, the present revisions.
4. During trial on the side of the prosecution 31 witnesses examined as
P.W.1 to P.W.31 and marked 61 documents as Exs.P1 to P61. On the side of
the defence, no witnesses or exhibits marked.
5. The gist of the case is that P.W.1/Henry lodged a complaint on
09.12.2001 with the Ramji Nagar Police Station, Tiruchirappalli and a case
in Crime No.559 of 2001 for offence under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C.
registered.
6. The complaint is that on 07.12.2001, when the de-facto complainant
standing at Manikandam Panchayat Union Bus stop, a two wheeler bearing
No.TN 45 E 4116 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
him, due to which, his left hand injured and fractured. The Ramji Nagar
Police conducted investigation, filed charge sheet against A-3/Anand before
the Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli. A-3 pleaded guilty and paid the fine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
amount. Thereafter, A-1/K.Subramanian, an Advocate, filed a Motor
Accident Claim Petition in M.C.O.P.No.755 of 2002 before the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal against the National Insurance company, claiming
compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injury sustained by the said Henry.
The CBI, Chennai was investigating a case in RC 34(A) 2006, at that time it
came to the notice that claim petitions filed with false particulars and forged
documents including the above case in Crime No.559 of 2001 came to light.
In the meanwhile, the Insurance Company investigator found that many of
the claim petitions were filed with false particulars substituting the
claimants/beneficiaries, vehicles and in some cases accidental fall and injury
have been projected as though road accident cases.
7. There were 5 incidents in Tiruchirappalli District alone. (i) Crime
No.179 of 2001 has been registered by Traffic Investigation Wing,
Contonment Tiruchirappalli, (ii) Crime No.204 of 2001 has been registered
by Jeeyapuram Police Station, (iii) Crime No.1051 of 2001 has been
registered by Thiruverumbur Police Station and (iv) Crime No.300 of 2001
has been registered by Lalgudi Police Station. Thus including this case there
have been five cases projected. In all these five cases, the vehicle TN 45 E
4116 shown to be involved in an accident and the rider in three of the cases
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
is M.Karunanidhi and in two other cases Pakkirisamy and Anand. A-1 filed
the compensation petition and A-2 projected his TVS Champ bearing No.TN
45 E 4116 as the vehicle involved in the accident. A-3 rider of the TVS
Champ and after registration of the case, voluntarily surrender before the
concerned police along with vehicle, produce documents and later pleaded
guilty, paid the fine amount. On the strength of the same, claims petition
filed. The Insurance Company finding that several of the persons were
involved in the offence and other agencies involved in conspiracy of
cheating, filed a writ petitions before this Court in W.P.Nos.39956 of 2005
etc. batch. This Court directed CBI to conduct investigation with regard to
the false and fake insurance claim and thus the case came to be re-opened on
the directions of this Court and CBI re-registered the F.I.R. in RC MA1 2006
0034 dated 02.08.2006, conducted investigation. During investigation, the
false claim using fake documents unearthed. The role of the petitioners and
Henry were confirmed. During investigation, Henry given 164 statement and
turned as approver. Thereafter, final report filed. The trial Court on the
witnesses and documents produced, convicted the petitioners and sentenced
to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections
120-B r/w 182 I.P.C., 2 years simple imprisonment for the offence under
Sections 468 r/w 471 I.P.C. and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- to each of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
accused, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and 1 ½
years simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 420 r/w 511 I.P.C.
and imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/- to each of the accused, in default to undergo
three months simple imprisonment. The sentences are directed to run
concurrently.
8. The background of the case is that A-1/K.Subramanian is an
Advocate, who predominantly practicing Motor Accident Claims cases.
A-2/V.Pakkirisamy is a Railway Employee, known to A-1. A-3/Anand is
nephew of A-1. A-1 and A-2 entered into a conspiracy. As per the conspiracy
A-2 was to collect the details about the persons, who got injured in accident
and taking treatment in hospital. They would be approached to give false
complaint as though injury sustained in road traffic accident. It was the role
of A-2 to project the TVS Champ TN 45 E 4116 purchased by him as the
vehicle involved in the accident. A-3 would be projected as rider of the
vehicle in most of the accident cases. Using the Insurance coverage of the
vehicle, false Motor Accident claim petitions would be filed.
9. During the period between April 2001 to December 2001, A-1 and
A-2 conspired with other persons, filed claim petitions in Tiruchirappalli for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
road accident cases. P.W.1/Henry was working as part time turner in
Manjamalayan Industries. On 24.11.2001 at about 6.00 p.m., while he was
working, an iron rod come out of the machinery, hit him on his left shoulder.
Thereafter he took some local medicine. Since the pain sustained, On
27.11.2001, he went to Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, informed that
he sustained injury while working at Manjamalayan Industries and got
himself admitted in the casualty. The Accident Register recorded for the same
reason. Since, it is a Medico Legal Case, the admission of Henry was
informed to the Police. The Town Police came and enquired with Henry. He
was not interested to proceed against his employer, hence, no case was
registered. On 04.12.2001, he was discharged with some medical advise.
During his stay at hospital, one Abdul Rahuman, claiming to be an agent of
A-1 informed Henry that A-1 would provide him all medical facilities and
also get him compensation, if he agrees to lodge a road accident complaint.
Henry was not interested. On 06.12.2001, A-1 gone to Henry's house and
convinced Henry to cooperate with A-1 in lodging a police complaint and to
file claim petition. Since pain got aggravated, Henry needed medical help.
Hence, as per the advise of A-1, on 07.12.2001, Henry went to Arjun
Hospital, informed that he met with road accident on 07.12.2001 at about
7.40 p.m. and he was hit by a two wheeler bearing No.TN 45 E 4116. From
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
the Arjun Hospital information was sent to Ramji Nagar Police Station, who
came their, recorded the comlaint of Henry, thereafter F.I.R. registered.
10. One Vijayakumar, Head Constable initially registered the case and
investigated. Later, one Murugaiyan, Sub Inspector of Police continued the
investigation. At that time, A-3 Anand, who is the relative of A-1 appeared
before the Ramji Nagar Police Station along with two wheeler TN 45 E 4116
and its documents, confessed his involvement and the vehicle in the accident,
produced the vehicle and submitted documents. Thereafter, he was shown
arrest, vehicle was sent to the Motor Vehicle Inspector and on conclusion of
investigation, charge sheet filed for the offence under Sections 279, 337, 338
before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruchirappalli. On 30.07.2002,
A-3/Anand pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount. As per the plan, A-1
filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.755 of 2002 claiming compensation of
Rs.2,00,000/-, signatures obtained from Henry, who appeared before the
Claims Tribunal, filed his affidavit in support of his claim. Thereafter, an
associate of A-1 approached Henry and informed him to withdraw the claim
petition otherwise he will be troubled. Hence, Henry filed an affidavit on
23.08.2006 withdrawing the accident claim. Recording the same, the claim
petition was dismissed. As per the directions of this Court, CBI taken up
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
investigation, recorded statement of witnesses and Henry was enquired.
Henry admitted his guilt and informed that he was willing to give statement
before the learned Judicial Magistrate disclosing true facts. Thereafter, 164
statement recorded. During investigation, the conspiracy between A-1 to A-3
in cheating the Insurance Company by filing false claim using the vehicle of
A-2, revealed. Originally, the vehicle was purchased by one Anthony Raj and
later he exchanged the vehicle in an Exchange Mela, and vehicle was shown
to be sold to one Ravikumar of Peravoorani, a fictitious person. The vehicle
and document was in possession of A-2, who raised loan using the
documents, produce the vehicle in the road accident cases. In this case, A-3
is the nephew of A1, who voluntarily surrendered and confessed that he
dashed against the said Henry. The conspiracy and falsehood have been
revealed by examination of witnesses and collection of documents and
thereafter charge sheet filed before the concerned Court. The trial Court on
the evidence and documents produced, by a detailed judgment, convicted the
accused, against which, they preferred an appeal. The appeals got dismissed
confirming the trial Court judgment.
11. The contention of the petitioner/A-1 is that he is a practicing
Advocate in Tiruchirappalli, predominantly filing Motor Accident Claims
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
cases. As regards this case, P.W.1/Henry approached the petitioner/A-1 and
sought for compensation and produced documents. On the instructions of
P.W.1, claim petition filed along with documents. Thereafter, P.W.1 appeared
before the trial Court, confirmed the same in his affidavit. For the reasons
best known, now he had turn around and made false allegations against A-1
as though he met him in his residence and on his compulsion, P.W.1 went to
the Doctor and got admitted in the hospital and thereafter road accident case
registered in Crime No.599 of 2001, which are falsehood. After filing of the
claim petition, P.W.1 approached A-1 and submitted that Police and
Insurance Company personnels are forcing and threatening him to withdraw
the complaint. Hence, the claim petition was withdrawn. Further, the
petitioner/A-1 has got nothing to do with the other accused. Normally,
advocate or advocate clerk's refer cases, hand over documents to the
petitioner/A-1 to file accident claim petitions and on their instructions he
files claim petitions. It is the usual practice, which is followed by other
Advocates. The petitioner had brought all these facts by way of cross
examination and also given detailed explanation while questioned under
Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court as well as Lower Appellate Court failed
to consider the same and the petitioner had been convicted merely on
surmises and conjectures.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
12. The petitioner/A-2 submitted that the vehicle TVS Champ TN 45 E
4116 is in the name of one S.Anthony Raj and the petitioner is not the owner
of the vehicle. There is no material to connect the petitioner, had conspired
with the other accused. There are witnesses and evidence to show that the
above vehicle was purchased by Anthony Raj, who thereafter exchanged his
vehicle on Exchange Mela and the vehicle was purchased by one
S.Ravikumar of Peravoorani. Neither Anthony Raj nor Ravikumar examined
as witnesses in this case. In the absence of the same, the petitioner cannot be
held as owner of the vehicle. A financier has been projected against the
petitioner to implicate the petitioner, that he had hypothecated his vehicle,
submitted the documents of Anthony Raj and obtained loan. Further, the
stand taken by the prosecution that the petitioner/A-2 has got 2 Insurance
certificate one from National Insurance Company and another from United
India Insurance Company, while the 1st insurance policy was still in force
with National Insurance Company. It is not required to have second
insurance for the same period. The petitioner has also projected as though he
has conspired with A-1 to find out the accident victims in various hospitals
and provide particulars to A-1. Further, petitioner/A-2 projected as though he
have assurance to the victims that adequate compensation would be obtained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
for them. He further submitted that there is lot of contradiction and
discrepancies between the oral and documentary evidences. Both the Courts
below failed to properly appreciate the same. It is proved that the vehicle
does not stand in the name of the petitioner/A-2. In such circumstances, the
petitioner/A-2 cannot be convicted.
13. The petitioner/A-3 submitted that none of the witnesses stated
anything against him. There is no iota of material to show that A-3 conspired
with other two accused in any manner. A-3 not signed or created any
documents in this case. Hence, the question of forgery or using of forged
documents and cheating would not arise. The vital contradictions and
discrepancies in the case has not been considered by the trial Court as well as
the Lower Appellate Court. Hence, the learned counsels prayed to set aside
the judgment dated 28.02.2017.
14. Learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent
submitted that all the accused joined together conspired and committed the
offence. In this case, P.W.1 is the approver, who had been with the other
accused through and through. Later, good sense prevailed and he confessed
about the entire happenings. No cross examination has been made on the
material aspects with the accomplice. P.W.1's evidence alone is sufficient to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
convict the accused. A-1 an Advocate gone to the extent of sending agents to
various hospitals to canvass and give assurance that Motor Accident Claim
Petitions can be filed and the injured can be adequately compensated. This
compensation amount would be shared among the conspirators. P.W.1 in this
case, initially resisted the sugar coated words of Agent, Abdul Rahuman.
Thereafter, took treatment in the Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli by
disclosing the true and correct particulars. He took treatment as inpatient
from 27.11.2001 till 04.12.2001. Thereafter, got discharged. At that time, A-1
himself visited P.W.1/Henry's house on 06.12.2001, convinced him with a
promise that his medical expenses would be taken care and he would be
compensated properly, if he toes the line of A-1. Thereafter, A-1 taken P.W.1
to Arjun Hospital. From the Arjun Hospital, information sent to the Ramji
Nagar Police Station, who came their and recorded statement. At that time, as
instigated by A-1, P.W.1 narrated accident story as though he was met with
an accident on 07.12.2001 and sustained injuries.
14.1. On the statement of P.W.1, F.I.R. recorded by Ramji Nagar
Police, who registered a case and was in the process of collecting evidence,
at that time, A-3 relative of A-1, appeared before the Ramji Nagar Police
Station, confessed about the accident as though he was the rider of two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
wheeler bearing No.TN 45 E 4116 of A-2 and produced the vehicle and the
documents of the vehicle and his personal documents. Thereafter, he was
shown arrest and let out on bail. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet
filed. As per the plan, A-3 pleaded guilty and paid the fine amount. Using
the same, A-1 filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli. Taking advantage of P.W.1's position, prepared
false affidavit, petition and filed the same before the Tribunal and also let in
evidence. Later when the CBI took drastic steps in finding out the fake
insurance claim, P.W.1 was asked to withdraw the claim petition and the
same was withdrawn and the claim petition disposed. Though no claim
amount was paid, the act of A-1 to A-3 by creating false documents
projected a false case, substituted the vehicle of the accused and also
projected the industrial injury into an road accident case, filing a claim
petition are not stray incidents, it is a well orchestrated crime committed by
all the accused, which needs appropriate punishment. The trial Court on the
evidence of the witnesses produced, given a detailed finding and rightly
convicted the accused. The Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeals
confirming the judgment of the trial Court. Having suffered two concurrent
judgments, now filed these petitions for the points, which had been earlier
raised and dealt with.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
14.2. The learned Special Public Prosecutor further relied upon the
decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2017 SC 2161 in the case of
Mukesh and another vs. State for NCT of Delhi and others for the point
that in the case of conspiracy under Section 10 of the Evidence Act anything
done by anyone of them in reference to their common intention, is admissible
against the others. He further relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in
Crl.A.No.1261-1262 of 2017 dated 01.08.2017 in the case of CBI vs.
M.Sivamani, wherein in a case of false accident claim, the High Court held
that false documents were given to public servant and no proceedings can be
initiated in view of the bar under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C, the Apex
Court referring to various citations and further adverting to the orders passed
in W.P.Nos.7389, 39956 and 39968 of 2005 giving direction to entrust the
investigation to CBI forthwith in respect of the complaints filed by the
National Insurance Company as well as other Insurance Companies, held that
in view of the same, the contention of the petitioners cannot be sustained.
Hence, prayed for dismissal of the revision petitions.
15. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent Police and perused
the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
16. Considering the submissions and on a perusal of material, it is seen
that P.W.1, Lathe Machine Operator sustained injury at his work spot on
24.11.2001. Thereafter, he had taken indigenous medicine for 2 days. Since
pain failed to subside, on 27.11.2001, he visited Government Hospital,
Tiruchirappalli, informed about the accident, injury sustained while at his
work. Thereafter, he was treated by P.W.2 and P.W.3, who recorded Accident
Register and issued wound certificate. In the Accident Register, it is clearly
mentioned that the place of occurrence is within the Lathe work shop and
thereafter, he was discharged on 04.12.2001 to continue treatment as
outpatient. During the period of treatment as inpatient, one Abdul Rahuman,
agent of A-1 came to the hospital, informed P.W.1 that he would be
adequately compensated, further medical care would be provided, if he toes
the line of A-1 by giving a complaint as though he sustained injury by road
accident and file a claim petition. P.W.1 resisted the same.
17. On 06.12.2001, A-1 gone to the P.W.1's house, informed that P.W.1
need not worry about the expenses or any other aspects. A-1 would take all
steps by providing him medical expenses by filing a petition before the
Motor Accident Tribunal. A-1 took P.W.1 to the Arjun Hospital on
07.12.2001, where P.W.1 was given medical treatment. At that time, P.W.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
informed that while he was standing near the bus stop, a two wheeler bearing
No.TN 45 E 4116 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against
him and he sustained injury. P.W.1 treated as inpatient. From the hospital,
information sent to the Ramji Nagar Police Station, who came there,
enquired and recorded his statement. When the investigation was in progress,
A-3 voluntarily appeared before the Ramji Nagar Police Station, confessed
his involvement in the accident and produced vehicle and its documents. The
Ramji Nagar Police after recording their statement, collected documents and
filed charge sheet in this case. As per the plan, A-3 pleaded guilty. Thereafter,
the claim petition was prepared by A-1. As usual A-2 given the vehicle TVS
45 E 4116, which was in his possession, though it stands in the name of
Anthony Raj. In all other aspects, the vehicle and its documents were with
A-2. This is spoken to by M/s. Siraj Agencies, who sold the vehicle to
Anthony Raj and M/s.PLA Agencies, who conducted Exchange Mela from
whom, the vehicle reached the hands of A-2. A-2 using the vehicle and
documents availed hypothecation loan. During hypothecation, he produced
vehicle documents and his personal documents.
18. The clerk of A-1 confirms that A-2 used to visit the office of A-1.
P.W.13, P.W.17, P.W.18, P.W.20 and P.W.23 confirmed the same. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
handwriting expert/P.W.28 confirms the filing of false documents. The
accused A-1 to A-3 and P.W.1 conspired together in projecting a false case,
created documents and thereafter using the same, filed a claim petition. P.W.1
confirms that injury sustained is only on 24.11.2001 and not on 07.12.2001.
The injury sustained on 24.11.2001 is an industrial accident injury, while at
work in the Lathe Workshop and not road accident injury projected to have
taken place on 07.12.2001. Thus falsification with cogent oral and
documentary evidence proved. The trial Court on the statement of witnesses
and the documents produced, by a detailed, well reasoned judgment,
convicted the accused. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the same. This
Court finds no reason to interfere with these judgments.
19. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to entertain these
revisions. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision Cases are dismissed.
10.11.2022
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non speaking order
rsi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Special CBI, ACB, Chennai.
2.The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruchirappalli.
3.The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Tiruchirappalli.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi
Pre-delivery common order in
Crl.R.C.(MD)Nos.280 & 281 of 2018 and 64 of 2019
10.11.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
