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

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 22284

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J
R.MOHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
Crl.R.C.No.980 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.10306 of 2022



Advocates:
Mr.L.Jaivenkatesh, Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

The prosecution failed to prove conspiracy or knowledge of wrongdoing by the petitioner, leading to the reversal of conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120(b), 420 r/w 511, 468, 471 - Conviction for conspiracy and attempt to commit fraud - Petitioner convicted by trial Court and appeal dismissed - Insufficient evidence to prove conspiracy or knowledge of wrongdoing by the petitioner - Prosecution failed to establish the time of accident, leading to the conclusion that the conviction was not sustainable. (Paras 12, 11, 10)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Divisional Manager of an insurance company, was convicted for conspiracy related to an accident claim where the insurance policy was renewed after the accident occurred. The time of the accident was disputed, with conflicting testimonies regarding when it occurred. (Paras 1, 2)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution did not provide sufficient evidence to prove the petitioner’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy or any prior knowledge of the accident details. The conviction was based on insufficient and unproven materials. (Paras 12, 11)

Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had knowledge of the fraudulent activities and whether the prosecution proved the time of the accident. (Paras 11, 12)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish any conspiracy or wrongdoing by the petitioner, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the claims against him. The conviction was set aside due to insufficient proof. (Paras 12, 11)

Result: Criminal Revision Case allowed; conviction and sentence set aside, and the petitioner discharged from all charges.

ORDER

The petitioner/A4 in C.C.No.449 of 2005 was convicted by the trial Court along with 5 others by the judgment dated 25.02.2020 and sentenced to undergo six months imprisonment for the offence under Section 120(b) of I.P.C. and to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Sections 420 r/w 511 of I.P.C. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner/A4 preferred an appeal to the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.38 of 2020. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, by the judgment dated 15.03.2022 dismissed the appeal confirming the conviction and sentence of the trial Court, against which, the petitioner filed this present revision.

2.The gist of the case is that one Raja Joseph Gunanithi/A1 lodged a complaint on 29.12.2000 at about 7.30 p.m. that while he was near the Raja Ganapathy Temple, Salem Town, one R.Mani/A2, driver of Tempo traveler vehicle bearing registration No.TN-33-Z-2070 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him and he suffered fracture. He was taken to Kamala Hospital, Salem and thereafter, a complaint lodged. On receipt of complaint, the then Sub Inspector of Police, James Kannaiyan/A6, Traffic Investigation Wing, Salem City, on 30.12.2000 at about 3.00 p.m. registered a case in Crime No.686 of 2000 for offence under Sections 279 and 338 of I.P.C. The said James Kannaiyan/A6 enquired witnesses, collected documents, filed charge sheet on 10.03.2001 before learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Salem in C.C.No.659 of 2002. The driver of the vehicle/A2 admitted the guilt, paid fine on 23.05.2001. The injured/A1 filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2001 claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation on 23.04.2001. The Insurance Company on receipt of claim petition entrusted independent investigation by the Insurance Investigator Sadhasivam/PW18, who conducted investigation and found that the accident took place on 29.12.2000 at 2.30 p.m. and the injured/A1 got admitted in Kamala hospital at 3.00 p.m. and the insurance policy for vehicle bearing registration No. TN-33-Z-2070 expired on 31.10.2000. Suppressing these facts, R.Mohan/A4/Divisional Manager of National Insurance Company, Namakkal issued a cover note insuring the vehicle without verification of records and examining the vehicle. The Doctor, Rajagopal/A5, attached to Kamala hospital made correction of time in the Accident Register copy. PW18/Sadhasivam finding suppression of facts and falsification of records, submitted a report to PW1/Regional Manager, National Insurance Company, Namakkal on 22.03.2002. Thereafter, complaint lodged to the CBCID, which was forwarded to CCB, Salem, who registered the above case. PW21/Inspector of Police received the complaint forwarded by the Commissioner of Police, Salem and a case in Crime No.12 of 2004 for offences under Sections 120(b), 468, 471, 420 r/w 511 of I.P.C. registered. On conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed against 6 persons, viz., A1/Raja Joseph Gunanithi, the injured victim, A2/R.Mani, Driver of the Tempo Traveler vehicle, A3/P.Mallika, Owner of the vehicle, the petitioner/A4/R.Mohan, Divisional Manager of National Insurance Company, Namakkal, A5/K.K.Rajagopal, Kamala Hospital Doctor, who treated injured A1, A6/James Kannaiyan, Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, Salem City, who registered Crime No.686 of 2000 for the accident. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW21 examined, Exs.P1 to P9 marked. On conclusion of trial, all the accused were convicted for offence under Sections 120(b), 420 r/w 511 and 468 of I.P.C. Now A4 is the petitioner before this Court.

3.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner as Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company, on 29.12.2000 at the request of A3/owner and A2/driver of Tempo Traveler vehicle bearing registration No.TN-33-Z-2070, asked P.W.15/Insurance Agent to p

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