CHOLAMANDALAM Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Legal work started off as a service, metamorphosed into a profession and is now a trade, lamented Justice R. Banumathi (as Her Lordship then was) in C.Manohar vs. B.R.Poornima, (2004) CriLJ 4436, which sentiment has been quoted with approval by the Supreme Court in Sunitha vs. State, (2018) 1 SCC 638. That was the position in 2004 and now, in 2018, I may add, "The profession of law has become a cut-throat competition". What is the proof for this statement? This case is the proof.

(2.) On 09.02017, a motor accident took place, in which, one Mohan breathed his last. His son Kapilraj gave a complaint to the police stating that on 09.02017, around 00.45 hours, when his father Mohan was proceeding towards Poonamallee by his bike, viz., Hero Honda Splendor bearing Registration No.TN 05 J 2686, he dashed against a stationary vehicle which was parked without its parking lights on and thereby, suffered injuries on his head, lost his balance and fell down; he lost his consciousness and was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to the injuries on 13.02017. After the death of his father Mohan, Kapilraj gave a complaint on 14.02017 and a case in Somangalam P.S. Cr. No.59 of 2017 was registered under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, as a 'hit and run' case.

(3.) On a reading of the FIR, it is obvious that Kapilraj was not with his father Mohan when the accident took place and that he had given the complaint by piecing together the information collected by him. In his complaint, he has clearly stated that the vehicle is "unidentified", but, it had a registration number. To the mind of this Court, this statement appears to be an oxymoron. But, one has to reconcile to the fact that this is how FIRs are registered in our criminal justice system. The most ludicrous part of the complaint is that, in one breath, Kapilraj says that the offending vehicle was an "unidentified" one and in the other breath, he says that it was stationary without its parking lights on. It is not his case that his father Mohan furnished these particulars while he was conscious. Had it been so, we can treat it as a dying declaration relevant under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. In column no.7 of the FIR, which relates to "Details of known/suspected/unknown accused with full particulars", it is stated as "XXX XXX XXX"; which means "unidentified vehicle".