Madras High Court upholds conviction for cheating two kidney donors and orders ₹1.5 lakh compensation so far

PW1 and PW9 alleged that the petitioner induced them to donate their kidneys by promising Rs.1,50,000 and Rs.60,000 respectively, but that they received only Rs.30,000 each after the transplants.

The prosecution’s case was that the petitioner collected their documents and that they impersonated other persons when admitted to hospital.

The trial court convicted the petitioner under Sections 120B and 420 IPC (two counts); the appellate court affirmed the conviction.

In revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, the petitioner challenged the reliability of the witnesses and relied, among other matters, on delay in lodging the complaint and his own kidney donation.

Whether the concurrent findings that the petitioner committed criminal conspiracy and cheating under Sections 120B and 420 IPC (two counts) were sustainable

Whether the delay in lodging the FIR, the petitioner’s own kidney donation, or the proposed sentence warranted interference in revision

The Court considered Sections 120B and 420 IPC, under which the petitioner had been convicted, and Sections 397 and 401 CrPC, under which the revision was brought.

It applied the principle that delay in lodging an FIR is not, by itself, a sufficient basis to disbel