Madras High Court
State Rep. By vs / on 29 July, 2022
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
Crl.A.No.261 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 18.07.2022 Pronounced on : 29.07.2022
Coram::
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.261 of 2013
State Rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
CB CID, Coimbatore. ... Petitioner/Complainant
/versus/
Saravanan, Male aged 39 years,
S/o.Ramasamy,
No.4, 1st Floor, Mahesh Towers,
Lingae Gounder Street, Odakadu,
Thiruppur. ... Respondent/Accused
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the
judgment of acquittal of the respondent/accused passed in C.A.No.13 of 2012
[common judgment passed in C.A.Nos.12/2012 & 13 of 2012] dated 04.10.2012 by
the Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruppur.
For Appellants : Mr. R.Krishore Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sreerangan
***
JUDGMENT
_____________ Page No.1/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 These two appeals are preferred by the State against the order of acquittal rendered by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in a common judgment passed in C.A.No.12 of 2012 & C.A.No.13 of 2012, dated 04.10.2012.
2. The facts of the prosecution is that, one Ramasamy respondent in Crl.A.No.265 of 2013 and his two sons Saravanan/respondent in Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 and Sudhakaran [A3] were running a driving school in the name of “Kavitha Driving School at door No.55/27, Railway Feeder Road, Tiruppur. They conspired to fabricate fake RC book for stolen vehicle and sell it to gullible purchaser. Pursuant to the said conspiracy, the RC book for the Maruti car bearing registration No.TN-37-N-6966 was fabricated. The registration number of the car was fraudulently changed as TN-59-D-3616 and with the fabricated RC book sold the car to one Mathivanan, on 15.02.1997, for a sum of Rs.1,17,500/- The said car with fabricated registration No.TN-59-D-3616 met with an accident on 18.02.2002 on Sangagiri Salem highways near Vaikundam, in which one person died and others sustain injury. When P.W.1 [Fiaz Ahamed], who purchased the said car from one Anil kumar, after accident, when tried to sell the damaged car to third parties, he _____________ Page No.2/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 came to know that, the RC book is a fabricated document, which does not belongs to the car, hence Mr. Anil Kumar gave a complaint to the race course Police Station, Coimbatore. Considering the gravity of the nature, case was transferred to CB CID, Coimbatore for investigation. Further, the Maruti car bearing registration No.TN- 37-L-6766 was purchased by one Kajapathi [P.W.2] in the year 1996 from one Mr.Prasanna for Rs.1,85,000/-. On 08.01.1996, when the car was parked near Suguna Kalyana Mandapam, Coimbatore, it was stolen, hence he gave a complaint to the Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore and case was registered in Crime No.1148 of 1996 for offence under Section 379 of I.P.C. From the Insurance Company, he got back the value of the car, after getting Non-traceable Certificate from the police. The RC book of the car was handed over to the Insurance Company at the time of receiving the insurance amount. This fact is corroborated by P.W.4, Anandhan, Zonal Manager of New India Insurance, Coimbatore. The car which came into possession of the accused persons with fabricated RC book bearing Reg.No.TN-59-D-3616 showing one Mr.Pandiyan, as the owner of the car and was sold by the accused to Mathivanan [P.W.6] and Marimuthu [P.W.7] jointly, for a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- through an auto broker Selvaraj [P.W.16]. The stolen car with fabricated RC book bearing Reg.No.TN-59-D-3616, was sold to one Annadurai _____________ Page No.3/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 [P.W.11] and he, in turn, sold it to Anil Kumar and Anil Kumar again sold it to P.W.1 [Fiaz Ahamed], who met with an accident on 18.02.2002, while driving the said car. Thus, through the investigation, trail of the stolen car with fabricated RC book pursuant to the conspiracy between the father and two sons, who were arrayed as accused A1, A2 and A3 came to light and final report was filed against these accused persons for offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 420 r/w Section 120B of I.P.C.
3. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 49 witnesses and marked equal number of exhibits.
4. The trial Court held that the prosecution has proved the conspiracy hatched among the accused persons to fabricate fake RC book for the stolen car and sold it to Mathivanan. Thus, committed offences under Sections 465, 466, 468, 471, 473, 474, 420 r/w Section 120B of I.P.C. The following sentence imposed on them by the trial Court for the respective offences.
Section 465 of I.P.C To undergo one year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, three months S.I. Section 466, 468, 471, 473, To under three years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to _____________ Page No.4/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 Section 465 of I.P.C To undergo one year R.I and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default, three months S.I. 474, 420 r/w120 (B) of undergo 6 months R.I, for each offence. I.P.C The imprisonment for substantive sentence ordered to be run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
5. Against the judgment of conviction and sentenced passed by the Trial Court, the 1st & 2nd accused preferred appeal in C.A.No.12 of 2012 and C.A.No.13 of 2012 respectively before the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and same was allowed on 04.10.2012.
6. Aggrieved by the acquittal reversing the order of conviction, the State has preferred appeal. Pending appeal, the State has filed an application under Section 390 of Cr.P.C., (“Arrest of accused in appeal from acquittal”), to issue warrant against the respondents/accused and secure them to be confined in prison. Accordingly, both the accused were secured and confined to prison and later, they were granted bail.
_____________ Page No.5/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013
7. Mr.R.Saravanan/respondent in M.P.No.2 of 2013 in Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 filed petition for bail and same was allowed. Whereas, Mr.Ramasamy/ respondent in M.P.No.1 of 2013 in Crl.A.No.265 of 2013 remanded in custody and later, both were granted bail. Thereafter, when both the appeals came up for consideration, there was no representation for the respondents.
8. This Court, on considering the facts of the case, allowed the Criminal Appeal against the acquittal, vide order dated 15.04.2019 pursuant to the Ramasamy, who is the respondent in Crl.A.No.265 of 2013 was secured and committed him to prison on 27.10.2019 and later, he was released from prison on 18.02.2022, after granting remission.
9. As far as Saravanan/respondent in Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 is concerned, he being aggrieved by the order of the High Court dated 15.04.2019, preferred SLP (Crl).No.2860 of 2022 challenging the High Court order for violation of natural justice principle. The order of the High Court dated 15.04.2019 was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Crl.A.No.486 of 2022 (Arising out of SLP(Crl)No.2860 of 2020 @ SLP (Crl) Diary No.43192 of 2019) dated 25th March _____________ Page No.6/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 2022, same was allowed. The order of the Single Judge, dated 15.04.2019, in Crl.A.Nos.261 & 265 of 2013 was set aside. Hence, Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2013 was restored on the file of this Court, for fresh disposal. Thus, in the above background, the Criminal Appeal No.261 of 2013 is taken up for consideration.
10. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the appellant submitted that, though the prosecution has proved that the stolen vehicle which is red colour Maruti car bearing registration No.TN-37-N-6966 owned by P.W.2 [Kajapathi] was stolen on 08.01.1996. In this connection, complaint to Peelamedu Police Station was made by P.W.2 [Kajapathi] and same shall form part of Crime No.1148 of 1996 on the file of Peelamedu Police Station, Coimbatore. The Non- traceable Certificate was issued by the Police and based on the certificate, compensation was given to the vehicle owner P.W.2 [Kajapathi] and same has been substantiated through evidence P.W.2 [Kajapathi], P.W.4 [Anandhan], Zonal Manager, New India Insurance Company and P.W.5 [Mathivanan], Senior Deputy Manager, New India Insurance Company when they took up the investigation and called for the original RC book of the stolen car. The evidence of Motor Vehicle Inspector report was spoken at length about the fabrication of RC book for the _____________ Page No.7/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 stolen vehicle proved through their evidence. Apart from that, the recovery of RC book bearing registration No.TN-39-K-3330 found in possession of the accused with intend to create document as if the stolen vehicle has valid RC book, clearly establishes the guilt of the accused persons. Besides recovery of forged rubber stamps and seals of RTO, from the possession of Sudhakaran (A3). Similarly, case was registered against accused/A3 sufficiently to indicate that, these accused persons A1 to A3 had been involved in creating forged RC book for stolen vehicles and were selling it to third parties through brokers as if, the vehicle is sold by genuine owners of the car.
11. The Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the appellant heavily harp on the version of the accused in other cases and the fact that, one of the accused Sudhakaran [A3] did not prefer any appeal and completed the period of sentence in this case as well as the other connected case. Further, submitted that, being closely related, father and sons been involved in fabricating RC book for stolen vehicle, conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court should be restored.
12. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondent/accused in _____________ Page No.8/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 submitted that, the prosecution has not proved that the maruti car which met with an accident on 18.02.2002 was sold by this accused to Fiaz Ahamed [P.W.1] or anybody else. The trail of the vehicle as spoken by the prosecution is that, the said vehicle gone missing on 08.01.1996 thereafter, the said vehicle met with an accident on 18.02.2002 carrying a different registration number. The RC book for vehicle bearing registration No.TN-59-T-3616 is marked as Ex.P.5. Thus, the RC book for the Maruti 800 red colour car originally stood in the name of Kruba W/o.Thiagarajan, a resident of Madurai. Thereafter, several transfers have taken place with due seal and receipts issued by the Officials of Transport Department. Ex.P.6 is the letter given by the Assistant Registering Authority, Coimbatore North, dated 22.09.2004 indicates that, Maruti Car bearing Reg.No.TN- 59-D-3616, was originally owned by Thiru.Kruba Thiagarajan of Madurai. Then transferred to Tmt.Banumathi of Dindugal with effect from 15.04.1997 and then Thiru.Anantha Jothi with effect from 09.04.2002, later to Mr.Vijaya Kumar with effect from 15.07.2002 and same is valid upto 20.10.2008. Whereas, from the salvage of the vehicle which met with an accident, it is contended that the damaged vehicle with registration No.TN-59-D-3616, is in fact is the maruti car bearing registration No.TN-37-L-6766. However, there is no evidence to prove the same. _____________ Page No.9/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 While so, the error on appreciation of evidence by the trial Court been rightly pointed out and reversed by the Appellate Court.
13. None of the prosecution witness has identified this accused as the person who sold the car to any one of these witnesses. As per the prosecution case, the vehicle was sold with RC book which stood in the name of Mr.Pandiyan. The said Pandiyan was not examined by the prosecution. P.W.6 [Mathivanan], who claims that, he along with P.W.7 [Marimuthu] purchased the car and sold it to P.W.9. Both these witnesses are dealers in old cars carrying on business similar to that of the accused persons. Their reliability and credibility in implicating the accused without any supportive documentary evidence not properly considered by the trial Court. Whereas, the Appellate Court has taken note of the discrepancy in their evidence, lack of corroboration and absence of link to the car which was stolen at Coimbatore in the year 1996 and the car which met with an accident in the year 2002 on Sangagiri Salem highways near Vaikundam qua the accused.
14. This Court, on scrutinizing the evidence, the opinion of the RTO _____________ Page No.10/13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.261 of 2013 regarding the fabrication does not point out the respondent in this case as the perpetrator of the crime or person aided and assisted the other accused persons. The theory of conspiracy between the other accused Sudhakaran [A3] not established except the relationship between A1 & A2, who are father and sons. No evidence by the prosecution to show any of the entry in the fabricated RC book was made by this respondent/accused. The recovery of few other fabricated RC book from the possession of the other accused cannot be fastened against this respondent unless meeting of mind between them are proved. In the lack of evidence to corroborate and prove the guilt of this respondent beyond reasonable doubt in the view of the Appellate Court which is probable need not be reversed at this length of time.
15. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The order of the Appellate Court passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in C.A.Nos.12 & 13 of 2012 is hereby confirmed.
29.07.2022
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
bsm
_____________
Page No.11/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.261 of 2013
To,
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruppur.
2. The Inspector of Police, CB CID, Coimbatore.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
_____________
Page No.12/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.261 of 2013
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
bsm
Pre-delivery judgment made in
Crl.A.No.261 of 2013
29.07.2022
_____________
Page No.13/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis