Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 3814
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
G.Kannadasan - Appellant
Versus
The State, Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police SPE - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.421 & 447 of 2018
Decided on : 03-01-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.R.Raja Rathinam, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Shankar, Mr.Arun Anbumani for Mr.B.Krishnamani Appukutti
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Baskaran, Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt the conspiracy and document alteration by the accused, which was not achieved in this case, resulting in the reversal of conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, Sections 120B, 182, 420, 468, 471; Prevention of Corruption Act, Sections 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) - Conviction of accused for conspiracy, fraudulent claims, and corruption - Successful appeal leading to reversal of conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court.
(B) Evidence must clearly establish conspiracy and involvement in altering documents, which the prosecution failed to do in this case. (Paras 8.1, 8.2)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted based on fraudulent claims related to a road accident involving one Mohammed Farooq, who died following the incident. The prosecution contended the claimants conspired to file false claims against an insurance company regarding the accident's narrative, alleging that the accused fabricated evidence.
Findings of Court:
Insufficient evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; the prosecution did not prove that the accused conspired to alter the vehicle's MVI report.
Issues: Whether the prosecution sufficiently demonstrated the accused's involvement in conspiracy and document fabrication surrounding a fraudulent claim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mere possibilities of involvement are insufficient for a conviction; concrete evidence is required to establish active collaboration in criminal actions.
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. accident details and legal claims. (Para 2) |
JUDGMENT :
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
The appellants herein are A1, A2, A4 and A7 in C.C.No.40 of 2017 on the file of XII Additional Special Court for CBI cases and they challenge their conviction and sentence for the following offences:
| Accused | Offences | Sentence imposed by the trial Court |
| A1, A2, A7 | Section 120B r/w.182, 420, 468, 471 r/w. 468 of IPC and Section 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. | Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
| Section 420 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. | |
| Section 468 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. | |
| Section 471 r/w.468 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. | |
| Section 182 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. | |
| A4 | Section 120B r/w.182, 420, 468, 471 r/w. 468 of IPC and Sections 13(2) r/w.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. | Rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
| Section 420 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. | |
| Section 468 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. | |
| Section 471 r/w.468 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. | |
| Section 182 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. | |
| Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act r/w. Section 511 of IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. |
2. A certain Mohammed Farooq had died in a road accident, and his widow and parents, arrayed as A7 to A9, had preferred Ext. P51 claim before MACT (Principal Sub Court) Cuddalore in MCOP 282 of 2003. An award too had come to be passed vide Ext.P58, dated 22.09.2004. According to the prosecution this claim was founded on a false narrative of the way the accident had taken place. Accordingly, the prosecution case can be divided into two parts: (a) First part relates to what the claimants before the MACT had alleged about the manner of happening of the accident; and (b) Second part relates to the fault-line which has fed a cause of action for criminal prosecution.
Accident the way A7 to A9 had claimed:
3.1 The narration of the accident as disclosed in Ext.P51 Claim petition is as below:
a) It was around 1.50 p.m in the afternoon on 11.10.2002. A certain Mohammed Farooq was riding his scooter along the left side of the road. While so, P.W.8, Karnan, a driver of a goods-carrier parked his vehicle on the right side, and tried to cross the road. When Mohammed Farooq suddenly spotted P.W.8 on his line of motion, he instinctively applied the brakes to avoid an accident. But misfortune struck when an auto driven by A1 knocked the two wheeler of Mohammed Farooq from behind, as a result of which, Farooq lost his balance and hit the man whom he wanted to avoid, namely P.W.8, consequent to which both Farooq and P.W.8 suffered injuries.
b) At around 2.30 p.m. Farooq was removed to Government Hospital, Neyveli Township, from where he was moved to M/s Apollo Hospital, Chennai. But on the way, he should have breathed his last breath, since on his arrival at the Appollo Hosptial at 8.00 p.m. P.W.13, the doctor who attended on him, had declared that Farooq w
