Mahendiran @ Mannar Mannan vs The State By
2022 Latest Caselaw 16629 Mad

                                                                                 Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Dated : 19.10.2022

                                                      CORAM

                             THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

                                                 Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

                     1. Mahendiran @ Mannar Mannan
                     2. Suresh                                                 ... Appellants

                                                         Vs

                     The State by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Kandhikuppam Police Station,
                     Krishnagiri District.                                     ... Respondent

                     Prayer:-        Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
                     Procedure Code, to set aside conviction and imprisonment imposed on the
                     appellants vide judgment dated 27.03.2018 made in S.C.No.131 of 2017
                     on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.


                                     For Appellants         : Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy

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




                     Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                                  Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

                                                       JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is arising out of the judgment dated

27.03.2018 passed in S.C.No.131 of 2017 on the file of the learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, thereby convicting the appellants

for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property

(Prevention of Damages & Loss) Act 1992 (herein after referred to as

“the TNPPDL Act”) and Section 323 r/w.34 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.08.2015, when the

political party called Viduthalai Siruthaikal conducted dharna and the

president of the said party was attacked. In order to show their protest

against the Government, the appellants with common intention to damage

the public property and in furtherance, on 24.08.2015 at about 5.30 p.m.,

in Thiruvannamalai to Krishnagiri road, near Chendharapalli, while the

driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation had driven a bus

bearing registration number TN 32 N 3758 from Puducherry to Hosur,

the second accused had driven his two wheeler bearing registration

No.TN24AC4467 Yamaha with pillion rider, the first accused and

proceeded opposite to the bus and stopped the bus. Thereafter, the first

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

accused had pelted stone against the front windscreen of the bus and also

damaged the same. In the result, the front windscreen of the bus was

completely damaged into pieces and caused damages to the bus to the

tune of Rs.4,000/-. The broken glass pieces caused injuries near the

Thumb finger of the driver. Hence the driver lodged a complaint and on

receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime

No.348 of 2015 for the offence under Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act and

Section 324 of IPC.

3. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final

report and same has been taken cognizance for the offences punishable

under Section 3(i) of the TNPPDL Act and Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC. In

order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1

to P.W.10 and also marked documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14. The

prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.4. On a

perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the

appellants' guilty and convicted them for the offence punishable under

Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act & Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC, and sentenced

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month for

the offence under Section 3(i) of the TNPPDL Act, and also sentenced

them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for the period of four months for

the offence under Section 323 r/w 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the same, the

present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted

that both the appellants are A1 and A2 in which the first appellant died

on 02.03.2021, as such the entire charges stand abated as against the first

appellant. He further submitted that the occurrence alleged to have been

happened on 24.08.2015 at about 5.30 p.m., and the complaint was

lodged by P.W.1. at about 8.00 p.m., on the same day. However, it

reached the concerned jurisdictional Court on 28.05.2012 at about 4.00

p.m. In the meanwhile on suspicious, the appellants were arrested and

material objects were seized by the respondent.

4.1. He further submitted that P.W.1 lodged complaint and it was

specifically mentioned that unknown persons pelted stone on the bus.

Therefore, there is absolutely no material to connect the appellants in the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

alleged crime. The appellants were arrested only on suspicious ground

and no material produced by the prosecution to connect the appellants.

Even according to P.W.1 & P.W.2, who were the driver and conductor of

the bus, they categorically deposed that the accused were identified only

in the police station, after their arrest, since as per the FIR, two unknown

persons were thrown stones in the windscreen of the bus driven by

P.W.1. Therefore, the respondent without any evidence, arrayed the

appellants as accused. It is a fatal to the case of the prosecution, since

after arrest of the appellant, the prosecution made statements in

accordance with their own wish. P.W.1 & P.W.2 who doesn't know about

the identity of the accused and no other witness had deposed that they

had witnessed the offence committed by the appellants.

4.2. In fact P.W.3 to P.W.5 were examined as eye witnesses to

the occurrence and they also failed to identify the accused persons. He

further submitted that the appellants were not arrested from the scene of

occurrence immediately after the commission of offence. According, to

the Investigation Officer only on secrete information the Inspector of

Police arrested the appellants. However, the prosecution failed to prove

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

the same before the trial Court. They were arrested only on suspicious

and proper way to identify the accused is only to conduct identification

parade in the presence of the learned Judicial Magistrate. Therefore, non

conduction of identification parade is the fatal to the case of the

prosecution and the trial Court ought to have acquitted the appellants

from all the charges. Hence, he prayed to allow this appeal.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for

the respondent/police submitted that though P.W.1 lodged complaint

stating that two unknown persons pelted stone on the bus, P.W.1

categorically mentioned the two wheeler with registration number which

was used by the accused persons to pelt stone on the bus. The two

wheeler driven by the second accused bearing registration No.

TN24AC4467 Yamaha, owned by the brother of the second accused.

While investigation, the respondent found that the vehicle was driven by

the second accused and the first accused was a pillion rider. Therefore,

there is no question of identification parade has to be conducted. P.W.1

categorically mentioned the registration number of the two wheeler.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

5.1. He further submitted that P.W.1 also sustained injury and he

was treated by the Doctor, who was examined as P.W.4. Further P.W.3

deposed about the occurrence and it corroborated the evidence of P.W.1

& P.W.2. He further submitted that the Motor Vehicle Inspector assessed

the damage caused to the bus to the tune of Rs.4,000/- and he was

examined as P.W.5. Therefore, the prosecution proved the case beyond

any doubts and the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and it

doesn't warrant any interference from this Court.

6. Heard Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy, learned counsel appearing for

the appellants and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate

(Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent/Police.

7. There are totally two accused in which the appellants are

arrayed as A1 and A2. The first appellant died on 02.03.2021, as such all

the charges are abated as against him. Insofar as the second appellant is

concerned, on 24.08.2015, the political party called Viduthalai

Siruthaikal conducted dharna. Due to the attack on their president of the

said party, in order to show their protest, the appellants came in the two

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

wheeler bearing Registration No.TN24AC4467 and stopped the bus.

Thereafter the first accused pelted stone against the front side windscreen

of the bus, which was driven by P.W.1. and caused damage to the tune of

Rs.4,000/-. The broken glass pieces caused injury near the thumb finger

of P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged complaint and the same was

registered in Crime No.348 of 2020 for the offence under Section 3 of

the TNPPDL Act and Section 323 of IPC.

8. On a perusal of FIR, P.W.1 alleged that two unknown

persons came in motor cycle bearing registration No.TN24AC4467 and

the pillion rider of the motor cycle pelted the stone on the front side

windscreen of the bus. Though the accused persons are unknown to

P.W.1, he noted the registration number of the two wheeler and

specifically mentioned the number of the two wheeler in the FIR. After

registration of FIR, the respondent started investigation and during the

investigation found that the said two wheeler belongs to the brother of the

second accused. On further enquiry found that both the accused only

came in the two wheeler and stopped the bus and pelted stone on the bus.

Therefore, it is absolutely not required to conduct any identification

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

parade. During the investigation, the appellants were found to be the

accused persons and arrested them.

9. Further, the conductor of the bus was examined as P.W.2,

who is also an eye-witness to the occurrence. He deposed that on

24.08.2015, the accused persons came before the bus and pelted stone on

the front windscreen of the bus. He also identified the accused persons

that the second accused drove the two wheeler at the time of occurrence

and the first accused pelted stone on the bus, due to which the front side

windscreen completed damaged and the glass pieces caused injury on the

right hand of P.W.1.

10. Immediately, they taken the vehicle to the police station and

lodged complaint. The Doctor who treated P.W.1 was examined as P.W.4

and she categorically deposed that P.W.1 came to the Government

Hospital and P.W.1 was treated for the injuries sustained on his right

hand. P.W.4 issued the accident register and the same was marked as

Ex.P.2. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved its case beyond any

doubt and the trial Court rightly convicted the appellants for the offence

under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

& Loss) Act 1992 (herein after referred to as “the TNPPDL Act”) and

Section 323 r/w.34 of IPC.

11. However, considering the facts and circumstances this Court

is inclined to reduce the sentence imposed by the trial Court. Accordingly,

the conviction imposed on the second appellant is hereby confirmed.

Insofar as the sentence is concerned, it is reduced to six months, on

condition that the second appellant shall pay a sum of Rs.25,000/-

(Rupees twenty five thousand only) as compensation by way of Demand

Draft directly to the office of P.W.1 viz., the Tamil Nadu State Transport

Corporation, failing which the order passed by the trial Court shall stand

restored. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the second

appellant for the purpose of sentencing him to undergo the remaining

period of conviction. It is also directed that the period of sentence already

undergone by the appellant, if any, shall be given set off, as required

under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

12. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed as abated as

against the first appellant. Insofar as the second appellant is concerned,

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.

19.10.2022 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order

rts

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.,

rts

To

1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.

2. The Inspector of Police, Kandhikuppam Police Station, Krishnagiri District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

Crl.A.No.237 of 2018

19.10.2022

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