Back
2025 Supreme(Mad) 5268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.
B. Anandan – Appellant
Versus
M. Badhrinarayanan – Respondent
Crl. R.C. Nos. 142 of 2023, 335 of 2024, Crl. M.P. No. 3095 of 2024
Decided On : 11-12-2025
For the Appellant : A.E. Chelliah, R. Parthaban
For the Respondents: N. Paul Sundar Singh, R. Shailaja, S. Vinoth Kumar
The appellate court ruled that while the acquittal under IPC was justified due to evidentiary gaps, the accused was liable under MV Act for failing to assist the victim post-accident, warranting a penalty.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 304(A) - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections 134(a), 134(b), and 187 - Accused acquitted by trial court; appeal by intervenor leads to appellate court reversing judgment and imposing fine for violating duty to assist injured after a traffic accident. (Paragraph 1, 6, 17)
(B) Evidence - Prosecution's failure to present key witnesses led to reasonable doubt and acquittal under Section 304(A); however, evidence supported conviction under the MV Act for failing to aid victim post-accident (Paragraph 6, 14, 16)
Facts of the case:
In a hit-and-run incident, the accused was alleged to have caused a motorcycle accident leading to the victim's death. The trial court acquitted the accused for lack of credible evidence, while the appellate court imposed a fine after considering inconsistencies in the defense and prosecution's evidence.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court found evidence sufficient to establish involvement of both the vehicle and accused due to non-cooperation during investigation.
Issues: Whether the accused was culpable under IPC and MV Act considering evidentiary shortcomings and prosecution claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court reasoned that while there was insufficient evidence for an IPC conviction, the accused's actions fell within the purview of the MV Act, warranting a penalty.
Result: Revision petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's failings in establishing the accused's involvement (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
| 2. details of accident and initial investigation (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. arguments presented by defense attorneys (Para 8 , 10) |
ORDER :
1. B. Anandan, the accused in C.C. No. 1926 of 2012, and Juliet Dola Rose, P.W. 10 in the same case, have filed these two criminal revisions feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court. They are therefore taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
2. On 28.07.2011, when P.W.15, Ravichandran, was on duty at D6 Anna Square Police Station, Raja, son of Selvam, lodged a complaint stating that he was working as a painter. While he was finishing his work on that day, i.e., on 27.07.2011, at about 10:45 p.m., he was sitting near Avvaiyar the statue. At that time, it suddenly started raining, and he ran to a nearby bus shelter. A black car, coming from south to north on Avvaiyar Kamarajar Salai, was driven at high speed and, near the statue, turned right to enter the beach. It hit a motorcycle coming from north to south. The car continued inside the beach without stopping and drove away. The motorcycle rider fell down after the incident. Nearby persons informed the 108 ambulance, which arrived and examined the injured person, pronouncing him dead. He had suffered severe injuries to his right leg. The motorcycle’s registration number was TN-07-BJ-0321. After his relatives arrived and his identity was later confirmed as Ruban Kumar, son of Muthukrishnan, the complaint requested action against the person who caused the accident and fled without stopping the vehicle.
3. Based on the said allegations, P.W.15 registered a case in Cr.No.249 of 2011 for the alleged offence u/s 304(A) IPC and 184 of the Motor Vehicles Act (in short 'the MV Act') and commenced investigation. After completing the investigation, he submitted a final report proposing the accused Anandan as guilty of the offences u/s 304(A) IPC and 184, 134(a) & (b) r/w 187 of the MV Act and 158 (1)(c) r/w 177 of the MV Act. When the case was taken on file, summons were issued to the accused, and copies were furnished. When questioned about the charges, the accused denied the offences and pleaded not guilty.
4. To establish the charges, the prosecution examined P.W.15, and Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.18 were marked. During the trial, the defence marked Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.12. On behalf of P.W.10, the intervenor, Ex.X.1 to Ex.X.9 were also marked.
5. Upon being questioned under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure about the incriminating evidence on record, the accused denied it as false. Thereafter, no oral evidence was presented on behalf of the defence. The trial court considered the parties' case. Firstly, it was observed that the complaint did not include the registration number provided by the first informant. The first informant, a third party who witnessed the accident, was also not examined by the prosecution. The other eyewitness, P.W.1, did not provide the vehicle's registration number. Similarly, P.W.5, who claimed to have chased the vehicle, also did not notice the registration number but only reported that a member of the public informed them that the car’s number was 1487. The trial court then considered the evidence of P.W.15, the Investigating Officer, and concluded that identifying the car as 1487 was not clearly proven by the prosecution. Coupled with the facts and the defence’s version that they had already scheduled the car’s servicing at a service centre, the trial court rejected the prosecution’s claim that the Ford Figo was left for servicing only after the accident. The court then examined the repair order in Ex.D.2 and disbelieved the prosecution’s account concerning the damage to the car. Accordingly, the trial court found that the prosecution failed to prove the identification of the car, the accused Anandan, and the incident, and, giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted him.
6. Aggrieved thereby, M. Badhrinarayanan, the i
