Madras High Court
Dakshinamurty vs The Inspector Of Police
Author: S.Ananthi
Bench: S.Ananthi
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON 19.01.2021
DELIVERED ON 03.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
Crl.RC(MD)No. 357 of 2016
Dakshinamurty ... Petitioner/Appellant/accused
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
CBCID, Thanjavur,
(Crime No.7 of 2005) ...Respondent/Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 397 & 401 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, to set aside the order, dated 15.03.2016 made in C.A. No.41 of 2015
on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the
Judgment made in C.C. No. 182 of 2010 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Thanjavur, dated 22.06.2015 and allow the above Criminal
Revision.
For Petitioner : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
Senior Advocate for
Mr.C. Gangai Amaran
For Respondent : Mrs.M. Anantha Devi
Government Advocate (crl. side)
*****
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
ORDER
This Criminal Revision case has been filed to set aside the order, dated 15.03.2016 in C.A. No.41 of 2015, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, confirming the Judgment, dated 22.06.2015 in C.C. No. 182 of 2010, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.
2. The petitioner/accused was tried before the trial Court. The trial Court, in conclusion of the trial, by judgment dated 22.06.2015 in C.C. No.182 of 2010, found the accused guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo One year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for Two weeks, for the offence under Section 471 r/w 468 of IPC.
3. As against the judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused preferred an appeal before the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in C.A.No.41 of 2015. The lower appellate Court, by judgment dated 15.03.2016, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the petitioner has preferred the instant criminal revision case.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
4. The case of the prosecution is that the FIR was registered in Crime No.208 of 2003 under Section 304(A) of IPC., that a bullock cart dashed against a two wheeler and caused death of rider of the two wheeler. But, subsequently, in order to get a benefit by way of compensation, A-1 with the knowledge of A-2 and A-3/petitioner herein, have introduced the mini lorry of A-2 bearing registration No.TN-65-A-3774 and A-2 himself drove the vehicle and caused the accident and to that effect, A-3/petitioner herein has filed charge sheet Hence the complaint.
5. Heard Mr.Veera Kathiravan, Senior Advocate for Mr.C. Gangai Amaran, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner and Mrs.M.Anantha Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing the respondent / State.
6. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner herein never forged the RC book, insurance policy of the vehicle bearing regn. No. TN-65-A-3774 and the ingredients of the Section 468 & 471 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. P.W.3/Jayapalan, who is owner of the bullock cart himself admitted in his evidence that the vehicle bearing regn. no. TN-65-A-3774 dashed against his bullock cart. But, http://www.judis.nic.in 4 the trial Court has failed to consider this aspect. He further submitted that PW12 Sridharan who is none other than the investigating Officer of this case disposed before the Court that the RC Book, insurance policy of the vehicle bearing Regn. No.TN-65-A-3774 are genuine in nature and no alterations were made in the above said documents. Therefore, the offences under Section 471 r/w 468 of IPC are not attracted against the petitioner. The offences against the appellant are not proved beyond all reasonable doubts. He further submitted that based on the first information given by one Anbalagan, the petitioner herein as a police officer registered the FIR in Crime No. 208 of 2003 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC and after that he has examined the eye-witness and recorded his statement under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. Subsequently, after investigation, he came to know that the vehicle bearing regn. No.TN-65-A-3774 was involved in the accident and therefore, he laid the charge sheet against A-2 and the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thuiruvaiyaru has found guilty of A-2 and convicted and sentenced him in C.C. No. 574 of 2003 and against the order, A-2 preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and in which, fine amount was confirmed and sentence was set aside.
7. He further submitted that the respondent police has filed final report against A-1 to A-3 and the case of the prosecution is that, while the petitioner http://www.judis.nic.in 5 has been working as a Inspector of Police, A-1's husband met with an accident for which a case has been registered by the petitioner herein in Crime No. 208 of 2003 for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. He further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that A-1's husband met with an accident wherein a bullock cart and two wheeler was involved and that the rider of the two wheeler namely; Annavu @ Annamalai who is husband of A-1 died and further allegations is that the said accident took place on between the two wheeler and bullock cart, but the aforesaid version was changed and subsequently all the accused introduced one Mini Lorry bearing No.TN-65-A-3774 was involved. He further submitted that the petitioner laid a charge sheet against A-2 and the learned Magistrate, Thiruvaiyar has found A-2 guilty and convicted and sentenced him C.C.No.574 of 2003 and as against A-2 has preferred an appeal before the appellate Court, wherein the find amount was confirmed and the sentence was set aside. He further submitted that said Judgment, the petitioner herein has preferred an appear in C.A. No. 41 of 2015 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur which was dismissed and the order passed by the trial Court has been confirmed. As against the Judgment of the appellate Court, the petitioner is before this Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
8. Per contra, Mrs.M. Anantha Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that eventhough on the basis of the first information given by one Anbalagan that a bullock cart dashed against the two wheeler of the deceased and caused the accident, the petitioner/A-3 registered the FIR in Crime No.208 of 2003 under Section 304(A) of Cr.P.C., and after that, all the accused with an intention of getting compensation for A-1, have colludedly inducted the mini lorry of A-2 as if the said mini lorry caused the accident and the same was driven by A-2 and accordingly, A-3 laid the charge sheet as against A-2 as if it is a genuine case. In this way, all the three accused acted knowing fully well inducted a new story by introducing a new vehicle, new driver of the vehicle, which are all against the truth. Therefore, they have been charged and the offences charged against them were clearly proved by the prosecution. That is why, the trial Court came to correct conclusion d there is no infirmity to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and therefore, he prays for dismissal.
9. This Court paid it's anxious consideration to the rival submissions and also to the materials placed on record.
10. This Criminal Revision Case is filed as against the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court. The scope of http://www.judis.nic.in 7 Criminal Revision under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., is very limited and this Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence, unless and until there is a illegality, perversity or impropriety in the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court.
11. This Court in Anbarasu v. Mukanchand Bothra, reported in 2019 (3) MWN (Cr) DCC 1(Mad) held that while exercising the revisional powers under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., the Court is required to find out whether there is any illegality or impropriety in the findings of the trial Court and the appellate Court warranting interference and it is not open to this Court to exercise the revisional power as second appellate forum.
12. The petitioner charged under Section 471 r/w 468 of IPC, convicted and sentenced to undergo One year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-in default to undergo simple imprisonment for Two weeks.
13. The ingredients of Section 471 of IPC is extracted hereunder;
“471 of IPC :Using as genuine a forged document (or electronic record):
Whoever fraudulently or dishonestly uses as genuine any document (or electronic record) which he knows or http://www.judis.nic.in 8 has reason to believe to be a forged document (or electronic record), shall be punished in the same manner as if he had forged such document (or electronic record), ”
14. The ingredients of Section 468 of IPC is extracted hereunder;
“468 IPC : Forgery for purpose of cheating:
Whoever commits forgery, intending that the document (or electronic record) forged shall be used for the purpose of cheating, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine”.
15. After completion of investigation, the Insurance Company preferred a complaint to CBCID against three persons. A-1 is the wife of the deceased who died in the accident and A-2 is owner of the van who fakely alleged that his vehicle made an accident and A-3 is the Investigating Officer. As per complaint, the accident was occurred between two-wheeler and a bullock cart, but the charge sheet laid against the TATA Van bearing bearing regn. No. TN-65-A-3774. No doubt A-2 is the owner and driver of the vehicle on the basis of charge sheet he was convicted.
16. P.W.3 who is the driver of Bullock cart is the main witness. He had stated that the collusion between two wheeler and four wheeler, even in case http://www.judis.nic.in 9 C.C. No. 182 of 2010 (CBCID Case) P.W.4 complainant is not the eye witness. He did not state anything about A-3. He ought not tell any A-3 forced him to give complaint against the TATA Van. P.W.5 to P.W.7 also not an eye witness. P.W.8 turned hostile.
17. Admitted portion in the cross examination of P.W.12, Investigating Officer is as follows:-
“,t;tof;fpy; tpgj;J rk;gtkhdJ vg;gb ele;jJ vd;gJ gw;wp Neubahf ghh;j;jjhf rhl;rpfs; vtUk; vd;dplk; $wtpy;iy. ,og;gPL kDtpy; 1k; vjphp ,uz;L rf;fu thfdj;jpy; Nghd jdJ fzth; kPJ khl;Ltz;b Nkhjp ,we;Jtpl;lhh; vd;Wk; me;j khl;L tz;b kPJ gpd;dhy; te;j ehd;F rf;fu thfdk; NkhjpaJ vd;Wk; ,og;gPL kDtpy; $wpAs;shh; vd;why; rhpjhd;. ,og;gPL kD jhf;fy; nra;tjw;F Kd;ghfNt 2k; vjphp kPJ 3k; vjphp ,e;ePjpkd;wj;jpy;; ,Wjp mwpf;if jhf;fy; nra;J ,e;j tof;fpy; vjphpf;F &.5000- mguhjKk;> 6 khjq;fs; rpiwjz;lid tpjpj;J jPh;gG ; toq;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;why; rhpjhd;. me;j jPh;g;gp;d; Nghpy; 2k; vjphp Nky;KiwaPL jhf;fy; nra;J Nky;KiwaPl;by; mguhjj; njhif cWjp nra;ag;gl;L jz;lid fhyk; ePf;fuT nra;ag;gl;L Nky;KiwaPL mDkjpf;fg;gl;lJ vd;W nrhd;dhy; mJ gw;wp vdf;Fj;njhpahJ. ,e;j tof;fpy; ehd; tprhhpj;j rhl;rpfspypUe;J 1k; vjphp gq;F VnjDk; cs;sjh vd;why; 1k; vjphpapd; gq;F vJTk; ,y;iy. b.vd;.65-v-3774 vd;w ehd;F rf;fu thfdk; 1k; vjphpf;F nrh;ejkhdJ vd;why;
rhpjhd;. ,t;tof;fpy; 2k; vjphpf;F nrh;ejkhd gjpT rhd;W fhg;gPl;L rhd;W Mfpa Mtzq;fs; cz;ikahd Mtzq;fs; MFk;. mjpy; ve;jtpj khw;wq;fNsh> http://www.judis.nic.in 10 jpUj;jq;fNsh ,y;iy. ,t;tof;fpy; ,t;tof;fpy; FwpaPL nra;ag;gl;l eLfhtphp fh.ep.F.vz;.208-03 rk;ke;jg;gl;l 3k; vjphp Fw;wtof;fpy; Nkw;nfhs;s Ntz;ba rl;lg;gbahd Nkw;nfhz;ljw;fhd Mtzq;fs; vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.
tpgj;J ,og;gPl;L tof;fpy; 1k; vjphp fhg;gl
P ;L
epWtdj;jplkpUe;J ve;j fhg;gl P ;L njhifAk; ngwtpy;iy vd;W njhpe;J nfhz;Nld;”.
He had admitted in his cross examination that the documents filed in the criminal cases are not forgery. Except investigation report by the insurance company is against the A-3. That too there was no evidence that at the instigation and force of A-3. A-2 gave evidence and documents. The only offence made out against A-3 is no proper investigation. Further, A-1 & A-2 are the main accused. But A-2 was only fined by the learned Judicial Magistrate. The witness did not disclose the facts to anybody. They were examined after seven years by the CBCID. Compensation also not received by A-1.
18. There is no allegation or evidence against A-3. Charges against A-3 are not proper. The charges also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
19. In view of the foregoing discussions and reasonings this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and set aside the order, dated 15.03.2016 in C.A. No.41 of 2015 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, http://www.judis.nic.in 11 confirming the Judgment, dated 22.06.2015 in C.C. No. 182 of 2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur.
Index :Yes/No 03.02.2021
Internet :Yes/No
ksa
Note:In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the Advocate/litigant concerned. To
1. The Principal Sessions Court, Thanjavur.
2. The Judicial Magistrate Court, Thanjavur.
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 S.ANANTHI, J.
ksa Order made in Crl.RC(MD)No. 357 of 2016 03.02.2021 http://www.judis.nic.in