Madras High Court
Raja vs The State By on 2 March, 2021
Crl.A.No.657 of
2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
CRL.A.No.657 of 2019
1. Raja
2. Murugan .. Appellants
.Vs.
The State by
Inspector of Police,
Indoor Police Station,
Dharmapuri District,
Crime No.222/2015 ..
Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the
appellants by Judgment dated 28.08.2019 passed in S.C.No.7/2018 on
the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Karthik
for Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suryaprakash
Government Advocate
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/15
Crl.A.No.657 of
2019
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed, challenging the conviction and
sentence imposed on the appellants by Judgment dated 28.08.2019
passed in S.C.No.7/2018 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri.
2. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.222 of 2015
against the first appellant for the offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 323, 353 I.P.C. and Section 3(1) Tamilnadu Property (Prevention
of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and as against the second appellant for
the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 353 IPC and Section 3(1)
Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992
(TNPPDL Act). After investigation, charge sheet was laid and the same
was taken on file by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri in
S.C.No.7 of 2018 against the appellants for the aforesaid offences.
3.After completing the formalities, the learned Sessions Judge
framed charges against the accused and after trial, found the first
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC and
convicted and sentenced him to undergo three months imprisonment with
fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment
and also found the first and the second appellants guilty of the offences
punishable under Section 3(1) TNPPDL Act, 1992 convicted and
sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with fine of
Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment,
and acquitted the appellants for other charges. Aggrieved over the same,
the appellants 1 and 2/accused 1 and 2 are before this Court by filing this
Appeal.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the
appellants have not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution.
He would further submit that no such occurrence is alleged to have taken
place and further the prosecution failed to prove the involvement of the
appellants in the alleged crime and whether the meeting was convened or
not was not established by the prosecution. He would also submit that
no independent witness was examined on the side of prosecution and the
Court below has erred in convicting the appellants especially when the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
trial Court held that the non-examination of the Manager, namely,
Narayanan was fatal to the case of the prosecution. He would further
submit that the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place at about
6.00 p.m., and the complaint was given only after 10 'O' clock on the
same day, especially, when the distance between the police station and
the alleged place of occurrence is only 3 kms., therefore, there was a
delay in preferring the complaint and the reason for delay was also not
explained.
5.The learned counsel would also submit that there are material
contradictions in the case of the prosecution, while in the complaint it is
alleged that the first accused attacked the victim and caused injury on the
backside, whereas the P.W.-8 Doctor has stated that the victim has not
sustained fracture in the left shoulder and it was only simple injury.
Though the trial court has acquitted the appellants for the offence
punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 353 of I.P.C., it has failed to
consider that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution that the first appellant has committed offence under Section
323 I.P.C and the appellants have committed offence under Section 3 (1)
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
of the TNPPDL Act, 1984. He would further submit that there is no eye
witness to the prosecution case and no independent witness was
examined and there is contradiction between the injured witnesses and
R.T.O, while the injured witnesses deposed that the mirror of the car was
broken by the accused, whereas the R.T.O has stated that only right side
of the vehicle was damaged and even no Material Object was recovered
to prove the damages.
6.The learned counsel would further submit that though the Doctor
has clearly deposed that there is no external or internal injury and even
from X-ray report, there was no fracture, the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, without considering the medical evidence wrongly convicted the
appellant based on the false complaint. He would also submit that the
prosecution witnesses influenced the police and foisted a false case
against the appellants, due to which without conducting any investigation
as to whether actually meeting was conducted or not, has filed the charge
sheet as against the appellants for the aforesaid offences. He would
further submit that the learned Judge based on the conjectures and
surmises, convicted and sentenced the accused which warrants
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
interference.
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that
P.W.1 and P.W.2 are injured witnesses and they have clearly spoken
about the occurrence and also the involvement of the appellants in the
alleged crime. He would further submit that they have clearly stated that
in order to conduct the meeting, on 12.11.2015 at about 5 p.m., they
went to Somanahalli Colony and parked their car bearing Registration
No.TN-36-5151 and at about 6.00 p.m., after the meeting was over, the
appellants damaged the car and also attacked one Narayanan, the
District Project Manager and when they tried to rescue him, the accused
persons assaulted them. Though the Sessions Judge acquitted the
appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 353
I.P.C. the Court below, on considering the deposition of injured eye
witness coupled with medical evidence had convicted the first appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 323 I.P.C.. He would further
submit that since P.W.1 and P.W.2 have clearly spoken about the
damages which corroborate with the evidence of Motor Vehicle Inspector
who had clearly spoken about the damage of the vehicle and issued
Ex.P3-Damage certificate, the trial Court has rightly convicted the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL
Act, 1992. He would also submit that the prosecution side has
established its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned Sessions
Judge, has rightly appreciated the entire evidence and convicted the
accused as stated above and there is no merit in this Criminal Appeal and
the same is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard both sides. Perused the records.
9. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.11.2015, on behalf of
Tamil Nadu Government's Special Scheme "Pudhu Vaazhvu Thittam" in
order to eradicate the poverty and improve the livelihood of village
people, the Witnesses Selvam, Narayanan, Pathiban and Perumal have
conducted a meeting at Indoor Somanahalli Colony for Women
Federation on Ready made Garment Industry. At the time of completion
of the meeting, the accused assaulted the witnesses and abused them in
filthy language. A1 caused simple injury and both A1 and A2 damaged
Mahendra Xylo car by breaking the right side glass and damaged the
right side door which belongs to the Government and thus caused damage
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
to the tune of Rs.14,000/- and thereby the accused have committed the
alleged offences.
10.After completing the investigation, the police laid the charge
sheet against the appellants and the trial Court framed charges against
them as stated supra. When questioned, the appellants pleaded “not
guilty”.
11. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial
Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 10 witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and 7 documents were marked as Exs.P1
to P7 and no material objects were recovered.
12.After completing the prosecution evidence, the incriminating
circumstances culled out from the prosecution witnesses were put before
the appellants and the appellants denied it as false, however on the side of
the appellants, no one witness was examined and no documentary
evidence was produced.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
13.After hearing the submissions made on either side and
considering the evidence on record and after hearing either side, the
learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri vide judgment dated
28.08.2019 in S.C.No.7 of 2018, convicted and sentenced the appellants
as stated supra.
14.Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the present
appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
15.This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a fact finding Court,
which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an
independent finding.
16.A careful perusal of the entire materials on record would show
that P.W.1 has categorically stated that he was working as organizer in
"Pudhu Vaazhvu Thittam" and on 12.11.2015 P.W.1 along with one
Narayanan, Parthiban, Perumal went to Somanahalli Colony to conduct
meeting on behalf of Government for ready-made garments to women
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
and at 5.00 p.m., they parked the said car bearing Registration No.TN-
36-5151 and at 6.00 p.m., after the meeting got over, when the
witnesses came near the car, the appellants abused them in filthy
language and assaulted Narayanan who is District Project Manager.
When PW.1 tried to prevent him, they assaulted P.W.1 and also P.W.2,
they broke open the window glass of the said car and they damaged the
door with hand and the witnesses given a complaint in Indoor police
station, which was marked as Ex.P1 and they got admitted in
Dharmapuri Government Hospital. Another injured witness was
examined as P.W.2. and he has also spoken about the alleged occurrence.
Therefore, evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 would corroborate each other.
Further, the Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as P.W.6, who has
clearly spoken about the damage of the vehicle and issuance of Damage
certificate Ex.P3. The mechanic working in the Government Automobile
Workshop was examined as P.W.7 and he inspected the damaged vehicle
and mentioned that three parts got damaged and issued damage estimate,
which was marked as Ex.P4. Further Doctor-P.W.8 was examined and he
also deposed that the witness sustained injury. Even though there are
minor discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
prosecution, that will not go to the root of the prosecution case. However,
though the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there was
delay in filing the complaint, it has to be seen that the alleged occurrence
said to have taken place at 6.00 P.M. and further it is only a fight
between two groups and in such case, there may be a delay in giving the
complaint, but there is no inordinate delay. The said occurrence is said to
have taken place at 6.00 P.M. and the complaint was lodged on the same
night at 10.00 P.M. and therefore, the delay in lodging the complaint is
not the sole ground to disbelieve the case of the prosecution and acquit
the accused.
17.A reading of the evidence P.Ws.1 and 2- injured witnesses
shows that they have clearly spoken about the attack made by the
appellants and on a perusal of Ex.P1 and P8, it is seen that there is no
mention about the obscene words and further the witnesses are not public
servants. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly acquitted the appellants for
the offences under Section 294(b) I.P.C. and 353 I.P.C. However,
considering the evidence of eye witnesses, official witnesses, injured
witness and also Doctor, Motor Vehicle Inspector and Mechanic who
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
have spoken about the alleged occurrence and injury caused by the
appellants and also the damages alleged to have caused by the accused,
the trial Court has convicted the first accused under Section 323 I.P.C.
and both the accused under Section 3 (1) of the TNPPDL Act.
18.Considering the overall evidence available on record and also the
facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any merit in
the Appeal and therefore the same is liable to be dismissed. As far as the
quantum of sentence is concerned , the period of sentence imposed on the
appellants for the offence under Section 3(1) Tamilnadu Property
(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 alone is reduced from one
year rigorous imprisonment to six months rigorous imprisonment with
fine imposed by the trial court. In all other sense, the Judgment of the
Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri remains unaltered.
19.With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed.
20.The suspension of sentence has already been cancelled vide
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
order dated 11.02.2021 and the accused are produced before this Court.
Since the conviction is confirmed, the Jail Superintendent, Vellore, is
directed to confine the appellants/accused to undergo remaining period of
sentence.
02.03.2021
arr
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
To
1. The Inspector of Police,
Indoor Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
2. The Principal Sessions Judge,
Dharmapuri.
3. The Public Prosecutor
Madras High Court
4. The Deputy Registrar, (Crl.side)
High Court, Madras.
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
P.VELMURUGAN,.J.
arr
CRL.A.No.657 of 2019
02.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.No.657 of
http://www.judis.nic.in
