Madras High Court
Dr.K.K.Rajagopal vs State Rep. By on 9 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
Dr.K.K.Rajagopal ... Petitioner
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
CCB, Salem City.
(Crime No.12 of 2004) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the judgment dated 15.03.2022 passed by the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem in C.A.No.36 of 2020 confirming the
conviction of the petitioner under Sections 120(b) and 468 of Indian Penal
Code and sentencing to undergo 6 months imprisonment for the offence under
Section 120(b) of Indian Penal Code and undergo 6 months imprisonment for
the offence under Section 468 of Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month of simple imprisonment passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Salem, by judgment dated 25.02.2020 in
C.C.No.449 of 2005.
For Petitioner : Mr.L.Mouli
For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
ORDER
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment
dated 15.03.2022, passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, in
C.A.No.36 of 2020, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the
petitioners dated 25.02.2020 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Salem, in C.C.No.449 of 2005, for the offences punishable under Sections
120(b) and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that the sixth accused viz., the
Inspector of Police, Traffic Investigation Wing, Salem City, registered the FIR
in Crime No.686 of 2000, for the offences punishable under Sections 279 &
338 of IPC, alleging that on 29.12.2000 at about 7.30 p.m., in front of the Juice
shop near Raja Ganapathy Temple, Salem town, while the first accused was
walking on the left side road, the tempo lorry bearing registration
No.TN33Z2070, which was driven by the second accused in a rash and
negligence manner, hit the first accused on his behind and also run over his
both legs. Therefore, he sustained injury and also fracture on his left leg.
Immediately, he was taken to Kamala Hospital for treatment in which, the fifth
accused viz., petitioner herein was working as duty doctor. At the time of
admission, his statement was recorded and the Accident Register was also
recorded by the petitioner. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was
Page 2 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
filed and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.659 of 2022 on the file
of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem. The second accused herein
pleaded guilty in C.C.No.659 of 2022 and paid a fine of Rs.1,100/-.
3. Thereafter, the victim viz., the first accused herein filed petition
seeking compensation before the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Salem in
M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2001. While pending the claim petition, the Divisional
Manager of National Insurance Company appointed the defacto complainant as
investigator to find out the veracity of the accident to pay compensation.
During the said investigation, the investigator found that on 29.12.2000 at 2.30
p.m., in front of the juice shop near Arulmighu Raja Ganapathy Temple, Car
Street, Salem, while the second accused, being the driver of the tempo vehicle
bearing registration No.TN33Z2070 drove the tempo in a rash and negligence
manner and dashed against the first accused and caused fracture on his left leg.
Immediately, the injured had taken to Kamala Hospital for treatment.
Originally, the accident had occurred at 2.30 pm., on 29.12.2000. After
admitting the injured into the hospital, the fifth accused viz., the petitioner
herein had attended the injured and recorded the accident registrar as the
accident had taken place on 29.12.2000 at 2.30 p.m., and he brought to the
hospital at 2.40 pm., and the injured was brought to the hospital by his sister
one Babyjose. However, at that time, the offending vehicle did not possess
Page 3 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
valid insurance in order to compensate the injured. Therefore, all the accused
persons including the owner of the vehicle conspired together and changed the
Accident Register as if, the accident had taken place on 29.12.2000 at about
7.30 p.m., and accordingly corrected the accident register since the accident
register is the first document even before the FIR. Immediately, after the
accident, the victim was taken to the hospital for treatment where the Doctor,
who attended the injured, recorded the accident register. The said correction
was made with an ulterior motive of claiming compensation from the insurance
company. In between 2.30 pm., to 7.30 pm., the offending vehicle was insured
with the insurance company.
4. The investigator of the insurance company submitted report which
was marked as Ex.P.8. Based on the investigation report, the present complaint
had been lodged and registered the FIR in Crime No.12 of 2004 for the
offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 468, 471 & 420 r/w. 511 of IPC on
the file of the respondent. After completion of investigation, they filed final
report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in
C.C.No.449 of 2005.
5. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.21 and
marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the petitioner, no one was
examined and no document was marked. Based on the oral and documentary
Page 4 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
evidences, the trial Court convicted the petitioner, who is arrayed as fifth
accused, for the offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and sentenced
him to undergo six months imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in
default to undergo further period of one month simple imprisonment.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was
also dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial
court. Hence, the petitioner filed the present revision.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised three
grounds. The first ground is that the conviction was made only based on the
Ex.P.8 which is the report submitted by the private investigator. The second
ground is that there is absolutely no evidence to show that the petitioner only
corrected the accident registrar as the time of the accident as 7.30 pm., from
2.30 pm. The third ground is that no one was examined to prove the charge as
against the petitioner and the prosecution failed to mark the alleged accident
register as well the FIR in Crime No.686 of 2000.
Page 5 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
submitted that the accident register and the FIR had been marked in the
accident case in C.C.No.659 of 2022 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.1, Salem, in which the second accused herein admitted his guilty
and paid fine. Therefore, in order to make claim under the Motor Vehicle Act,
all the accused persons conspired together and corrected the accident register
and filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.56 of 2001. On receipt of the claim
petition, the insurer viz., the National Insurance Company appointed the private
investigator to find out the manner in which, the accident had taken place and
on whose negligence.
7.1. During the investigation, the investigator found that all the
accused persons conspired together and corrected the time of the accident and
filed the claim petition. Before 7.30 pm., on 29.12.2000, the offending vehicle
did not possess any insurance policy. After the accident, the offending vehicle
took policy and filed claim petition. In order to substantiate the claim petition,
all the accused persons conspired together and corrected the time in the
accident register and produced the same before the claim tribunal. Therefore,
the trial Court rightly convicted all the accused persons and the same was also
confirmed by the appellate Court.
Page 6 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
9. On 29.12.2000, there was an accident in which, the first accused
sustained grievous injury and admitted to the petitioner’s hospital, who is
arrayed as A5. While admitting the first accused, the petitioner recorded the
accident register that the injured was brought by her sister Babyjose at about
7.40 p.m., and she stated that the injured met with an accident at 2.30 p.m., in
front of the juice shop near Raja Ganapathy Temple, Salem Town and sustained
injury. After recording the accident register, the injured was treated by the
petitioner. Thereafter, a copy of the accident register was sent to the Inspector
of Police, Town Police Station, Salem. On receipt of the same, the Sub
Inspector of Police, Town Police Station, Salem, rushed to the hospital viz.,
Kamala Hospital, Salem and recorded the statement and registered the FIR on
the next day, alleging that on 29.12.2000 at about 7.30 p.m., when the injured
was working on the left side of the road, the offending vehicle hit him on his
back side by its driver in a rash and negligence manner and also run over his
leg. Due to which, he sustained fracture on his left leg and other injuries.
Page 7 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
10. After registration of FIR and after recording the statement from
the injured as if the accident was taken place on 29.12.2000 at about 7.30 pm.,
the respondent filed final report and same has been taken cognizance in
C.C.No.659 of 2002 before the very same trial Court. The driver of the vehicle
viz., second accused herein admitted his guilty and paid fine. In the mean
while, it was found that the offending vehicle did not possess any valid
insurance policy. Therefore, even before the registration of FIR, the petitioner
conspired with other accused persons corrected the accident register as if the
injured was brought to the hospital at about 7.40 pm., and he met with an
accident at about 7.30 p.m., so that the offending vehicle could have got
insured with the National Insurance Company. Therefore, the trial Court not
only convicted the petitioner based on the report submitted by the private
insurer but also on perusal of the accident register and FIR in Crime No.686 of
2000.
11. Insofar as non-marking of the accident register and the FIR in
Crime No.686 of 2000, is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, since these
are Court record in C.C.No.659 of 2002 on the file of the learned Judicial
Magistrate No.I, Salem viz., the very same trial Court in this case. Further, the
person, who brought the injured to the hospital, was examined as P.W.5 and she
turned hostile. As per the accident register, P.W.5 only brought the injured to
Page 8 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
the hospital and accordingly, the accident register was recorded by the
petitioner herein. However, after knowing the fact that the offending vehicle
did not possess any insurance policy, that too after met with an accident, the
third accused viz., owner of the vehicle approached the fourth accused and
obtained coverage note for the offending vehicle. The fourth accused without
even verifying the records of the vehicle issued coverage note for the offending
vehicle.
12. Further after registration of the present case, the claim made
before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal had been withdrawn by the first
accused herein. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved all the charges
before the trial Court and the trial Court rightly convicted the petitioner for the
offence punishable under Section 468 of IPC and the same was also rightly
confirmed by the appellate Court. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in
the orders passed by the Courts below and the revision fails.
13. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Case stands dismissed.
09.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
Page 9 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
rts
To
1. Principal Sessions Judge,
Salem.
2. Judicial Magistrate No.I,
Salem.
3.The Inspector of Police,
CCB, Salem City.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
Crl.R.C.No.274 of 2023
09.06.2025
Page 10 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/06/2025 03:30:39 pm )