SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Mad) 71

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. S. Jeyakumar
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Udayakumar, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) assisted by Ms. Harshana. T

The prosecution failed to prove the petitioner’s participation in fraudulent insurance claims beyond reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 420, 465, 468, 471 - Criminal Revision Case - Petitioner convicted for cheating related to false insurance claims following a motorcycle accident - Trial Court's conviction confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court - Prosecution evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - Essential discrepancies in vehicle identification and rider's identity established leading to the petitioner's acquittal. (Paras 2, 8, 9)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Scope of revision - Court's review of lower courts’ findings indicates failure to substantiate allegations of forged claims against the petitioner contrary to evidence presented. (Paras 6-8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted of multiple offenses related to a motorcycle accident claim. Discrepancies in vehicle documentation and witness testimonies led to an investigation revealing no evidence of falsification by the petitioner.

Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence that the petitioner was involved in any fraudulent activity related to the motor accident claims.

Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the authenticity of vehicle identification.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in a finding of not guilty.

Result: The Criminal Revision Case is allowed; the petitioner is acquitted from all charges.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top