Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 2143
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)
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
The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; insufficient evidence leads to acquittal in conspiracy and fraud cases.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 120B, 182, 420, 468, 471, 304A - Prevention of Corruption Act - Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d) - Conviction and sentence challenged for conspiracy to defraud insurance company through false claim regarding road accident - Prosecution failed to establish involvement of accused in fabrication of evidence and conspiracy. (Paras 1, 8.1, 11)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Standard of proof - The prosecution must prove charges beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction. (Paras 8.1, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellants, involved in a road accident case, were accused of conspiring to present a fraudulent claim to the insurance company regarding the death of Mohammed Farooq, who died following an accident on 11.10.2002. The claim was challenged based on alleged discrepancies in the evidence presented.
Findings of Court:
The prosecution could not establish the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the allowance of appeals and setting aside of the trial court's conviction.
Issues: Whether the appellants conspired to defraud the insurance company and whether the evidence was sufficient to prove their involvement in the alleged conspiracy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the alleged conspiracy.
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
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 was brought dead, and recorded it in Ext.P32.
