Allowed

Udhaya Kumar, Aged 26 Years, v. the State Rep. by

Madras HC14 Nov 2022CRL RC/816/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the CrPC to set aside criminal convictions. The High Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the trial court and the confirming appeal due to substantial contradictions in evidence, delay in the damage certificate, and failure by the prosecution to recover the two-wheeler used by the accused.

What did the court decide?

Judgment and orders are set aside; fine amount refunded; bail bond cancelled.

Udhaya Kumar, Aged 26 Years, Vs the State Rep. by — Cheating and Forgery | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 14.11.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

Udhaya Kumar

... Petitioner

Vs.

The State represented by The Inspector of Police, B-1, Salavakkam Police Station, Salavakkam, Kancheepuram. (Crime No.200 of 2011) ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Revision case has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C to call for the records and set aside the orders passed by the Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) at Kancheepuram in Crl.Appeal.No.1 of 2017 dated 20.04.2018 confirmed the conviction, sentence of imprisonment as well as fine made by the Judgment dated 22.12.2016 in S.C.No.83 of 2012 delivered by the learned Assistant Session Judge at Kancheepuram against the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Karthick For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 8

¶14

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Criminal Revision case has been filed as against the Judgment passed in Crl.Appeal.No.1 of 2017 dated 20.04.2018 on the file of the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) at Kancheepuram, thereby confirming the Judgment passed in S.C.No.83 of 2012, dated 22.12.2016 on the file of the learned Assistant Session Judge at Kancheepuram.

¶17

The case of the prosecution is that on 22.05.2011, when P.W.2 drove the bus belonging to Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation bearing Registration No.TN 32 N 2160 from Chengalpattu to Meyyur, at about 07.45 p.m., near Meyyur Lord Ganesa's Temple, the accused drove his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN AL 2144 Hero Honda motor cycle in the back side of the bus and pelted stones on the the rear side wind shield of the bus and caused damage to the tune of Rs.2000/-. When it was questioned by the driver and conductor of the bus, the accused restrained them and also threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, the complaint.

¶18

On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered FIR in Crime No.200 of 2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act as against the accused. After https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 8

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶20

completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in S.C.No.83 of 2012.

¶21

On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. The prosecution also produced M.O.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Section 353 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 353 of IPC and also sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo further period of two month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed confirming the order passed by the Trial Court. Hence, this revision.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there were contradictions in the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2. The conductor of the bus was examined as P.W.1. He deposed that the accident had taken place on 22.05.2011 at about 07.45 p.m. When P.W.2 drove the bus, the accused https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 8

¶23

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶24

attempted to overtake the bus. The road was narrow and absolutely there is no possiblility to overtake the bus. The accused drove the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN AL 2144 Hero Honda motor cycle and pelted stones on the rear side wind shield of the bus and caused damage to the bus. Immediately, they stopped the bus and enquired the accused and with the help of the passengers, they identified the name of the accused. Thereafter, along with P.W.2 they had taken the bus to the respondent Police Station and lodged a complaint. Immediately, the Police personnel came to the place of the occurrence and registered FIR.

¶25

P.W.2 is the Driver of the bus and he deposed that on 22.05.2011 at

¶26

about 07.45 p.m, the accused pelted stones on the rear side wind shield of the bus. Immediately, it was informed to the respondent through phone. Thereafter, the respondent came to the place of occurrence. Both deposed that after examining the accused, he had gone away and they failed to catch hold the accused. P.W.3 to P.W.7 who are the passengers of the bus, turned hostile including the Mahazer witnesses, who was examined as P.W.6 and P.W.7.

¶27

The Investigation Officer was examined as P.W.9. He deposed that the

¶28

occurrence had taken place on 22.05.2011, at about 07.45 p.m and he received https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 8

¶29

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶30

the complaint at 09.30 p.m. Thereafter, at about 10 p.m, he went to the place of occurrence and conducted enquiry. He did not even whisper that he had received a phone call from the driver of the bus about the occurrence. Both the driver and the conductor went to the Police Station at about 09.30 p.m and lodged the complaint. Further, the vehicle i.e., two wheeler, used by the accused was not recovered by the respondent. Thus, the contradictions are fatal to the case of the prosecution, since no other eye witness supported the case of the prosecution, except the driver and conductor of the bus. That apart, the Engineer who assessed the damage caused by the petitioner was examined as P.W.8. He deposed that the date of occurrence i.e.,on 22.05.2011, he assessed the damage on the same day as Rs.1000/-. However, he issued a certificate to that effect only on 02.01.2012, after a period of six months from the date of occurrence. There was no explanation for the delay in issuance of damage certificate. Further, he could not have inspected the vehicle on the same day, since the FIR was registered at about 09.30 p.m., on 22.05.2011. Only at about 10 p.m., the respondent inspected the place of occurrence.

¶31

The damage certificate was marked as Ex.P6. A perusal of damage certificate revealed that P.W.8 had issued the certificate only on 02.01.2012. It does not reveal that P.W.8 had inspected the bus on the date of occurrence, i.e., Page 5 of 8

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶34

22.05.2011. Ex.P6 is stated as follows,

¶35

“br';fw;gl;L gzpkid 1 rhh;e;j ngUj;J vz; TN vz; 32 N 2160 vd;w ngUe;J ika{h; vd;Dkplj;jpy; gpd; tyJg[w fhw;Wj;jil fz;zho cile;Js;sJ/ fhw;Wj; jil fz;zhoapd; kjpg;g[ Rkhh; U:/800-? MFk;/ khl;Lk; Ryp U:/200-? Mf bkhj;jk; nrjhuj; bjhif U:gha; 100-? (Mapuk;) MFk; vd;gij j';fspd; nkyhd ftdj;jpw;F bjhptpj;Jf;bfhs;fpnwhk;”/

¶36

Thus, it is clear that there is no proof to show that P.W.8 had inspected

¶37

the vehicle on the same date of occurrence. The certificate was issued only on 02.01.2012. There was no explanation by the prosecution. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt. In fact, the respondent did not even seize the two wheeler which was involved in the crime from the accused. It is also fatal to the case of the prosecution and the Courts below, without considering these aspects, mechanically convicted the petitioner.

¶38

In view of the above, the Judgment passed in Crl.Appeal.No.1 of 2017 dated 20.04.2018 on the file of the learned Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) at Kancheepuram confirming the Judgment passed in S.C.No.83

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 6 of 8

¶40

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶41

of 2012, dated 22.12.2016 on the file of the learned Assistant Session Judge at

¶42

Kancheepuram are hereby set aside. The fine amount, if any, paid by the petitioner shall be refunded to him. The bail bond, if any, executed by the petitioner shall stand cancelled.

¶43

Accordingly, this Criminal Revision case is allowed.

¶44

14.11.2022

¶45

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mn

¶46

¶47

The Additional Session Judge (Fast Track Court) at Kancheepuram.

¶48

The Assistant Session Judge at Kancheepuram.

¶49

The Inspector of Police, B-1, Salavakkam Police Station, Salavakkam, Kancheepuram.

¶50

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶51

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J

¶52

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

Page 7 of 8

¶55

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶56

Crl.R.C.No.816 of 2018

¶57

14.11.2022

¶58

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 8

Udhaya Kumar, Aged 26 Years, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Udhaya Kumar, Aged 26 Years, v. the State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Bajaj Allianz Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs a.Asogan

The Divisional Manager Vs J.Rajakumary

Rajavalli Vs M/S.Nsk Blue Metals

Cecily Rani Vs Minor Infant Bosco

K.Ganansekaran, Age 69 Years, Vs the State Rep by Its

Arun @ Arunachalam, Vs State by