IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
M. Venkatesan - Petitioner
Versus
State Rep by The Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch - Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.129 of 2022
Decided On : 20-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's case based on alleged motor accident. (Para 3) |
| 2. defense argues on evidentiary and procedural inconsistencies. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court finds failings in prosecution's evidence. (Para 8) |
| 4. court acquits petitioner and sets aside prior judgments. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/A3 to set aside the judgment dated 22.11.2021 in Crl.A.No.35 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai District (lower appellate Court), confirming the conviction and sentence in the judgment dated 27.09.2019 in C.C.No.97 of 2013 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Thiruvannamalai (trial Court).
2.The Trial Court convicted the petitioner/A3 in C.C.No.97 of 2013 and sentenced to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 420 IPC , to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 465 , to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 468 and to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,00/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 471 . Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal in C.A.No.35 of 2019 and the Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. Against which, the present revision filed.
3.The case of the prosecution is that two persons, namely Sadasivam and Venkatesan filed motor accidents claim petitions in MCOP.No.187 of 2002 and MCOP.No.188 of 2002 before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Thiruvannamalai that on 08.03.2001 when the said Sadasivam and Venkatesan were riding in a cycle after completing their work at Thiruvannamalai near Kizhnachipattu elementary school at about 11 PM, at that time, a TVS Suzuki bike bearing registration No.PY-01-Q-5832 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit them from behind. Both of them got injured. Sadhasivam got injured on the back of his head and sustained bruises on his left arm. Venkatesan sustained bruises on his left arm, back of his shoulder, right palm and below his left eye. Thereafter, both taken to the Government General Hospital, Thiruvannamalai, wherein PW8/Casualty Doctor examined them, gave treatment and issued Accident Registers/Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. Four days after discharge, the said Sadasivam and Venkatesan, along with his friends, went to Kilpennathur Police Station, where the Head Constable registered a case in Crime No.101 of 2001 for the offence under sections 279 and 337 IPC against Narayanamoorthy, the rider of TVS Suzuki bike bearing registration No.PY-01-Q-5832. The vehicle was sent to the Motor Vehicle Inspector for inspection. The Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected the vehicle on 21.03.2001 and gave inspection report that accident was not due to any mechanical defect. After filing the motor accident claim petitions, notice was sent to the Insurance Company, namely, New India Assurance Company, Thiruvannamalai. The Insurance Company found that there is discrepancy in the vehicle number given in the motor vehicle report, accident register and FIR, further the rider of the vehicle, Narayanamoorthy was shown as the accused in FIR but in the motor vehicle report, Narayanamoorthy/A1 was shown as the owner of the vehicle and one S.Kannan was shown as the rider of the bike. Getting suspicious about the claim petition and the annexed documents, PW1 forwarded the documents to a Private Investigator/PW2 to verify the genuineness of the insurance claim. PW2 conducted enquiry and found that there are two vehicle numbers, one shown in the motor vehicle inspector’s report as PY-01-Q-5832 and a
The prosecution failed to prove the petitioner’s participation in fraudulent insurance claims beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.
Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; inadequate evidence led to acquittal of the accused.
Accident claim - Since the clinching rebuttal evidence clearly demonstrates that the claimant himself was riding the bike and on account of his own negligence he sustained injuries, the claimant cann....
The court held that the lack of credible evidence linking the insured vehicle to the accident necessitated the annulment of the Tribunal's award, emphasizing the importance of substantive proof in li....
The absence of credible evidence proving vehicle involvement in an accident negates claims for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of liability in a motor vehicle accident case, based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, medical documents,....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.