Madras High Court
Rajan @ Raja Clement ... vs State Rep By on 21 April, 2023
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.04.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
1.Rajan @ Raja Clement Packiayanathan
2.Raji
3.Stephen ... Petitioners
Vs.
State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Sivanthipatti Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
(Cr.No.117 of 2012) ... Respondent
PRAYER : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in judgment
passed in S.C.No.36 of 2014 dated 30.10.2015 by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and which was modified by the III
Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.125 of 2015 dated
18.09.2017. Revise the same.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
For Petitioners : Mr.K.Navaneetha Raja
For Respondent : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
This Criminal Revision Case has been filed to set aside the
judgment passed in S.C.No.36 of 2014 dated 30.10.2015 by the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and which was modified by the III
Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in C.A.No.125 of 2015 dated
18.09.2017.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 19.08.2012, due to
previous enmity, at about 11.00 pm, the accused persons set ablaze on
the thatched shed in front of the one of the witness's house and also
burned the entire car bearing Reg.No.TN02R1202 owned by the defacto
complainant. Thereby, the accused caused loss to the defacto
complainant to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-.
3.On the complaint, the respondent police registered FIR in Cr.No.
117 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Section 435 IPC and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
Section 4 of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of damage and loss)Act,
1992 r/w Section 34 IPC. After completion of investigation, the
respondent police filed the final report and the same was taken
cognizance in S.C.No.36 of 2014 by the learned Assistant Sessions
Judge, Tirunelveli.
4.On the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined
and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. The prosecution also produced material
objects 1 and 2. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no
document was marked. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the
trial Court found the accused persons guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act and they were sentenced to undergo
three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- i/d
three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 4 of TNPPDL Act. Aggrieved by the same, the accused persons
preferred an appeal and the same was partly allowed the appeal and
thereby, confirmed the conviction and reduced the sentence alone from
three years to two years. Hence, the present revision.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
5.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that there were discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3.
P.W.2 and P.W.3 are close relatives of P.W.1 and hence, they deposed in
support of P.W.1. In fact, P.W.3 was aged about 13 years at the time of
the occurrence and he was tutored to depose before the trial Court. One
of the eye witnesses was examined as as P.W.2 and he is also close
relative of P.W.1. He could not also seen the occurrence, though it was
happened in front of his house. In fact, after seeing the fire, immediately,
he called respondent police over phone. However, no FIR has been
registered. After complaint lodged by the complainant, FIR has been
registered. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond any
doubt.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would further
submit that the Investigating Officer's daughter is married to the son of
P.W.1 and hence, a false case has been foisted as against the petitioners.
Without any evidence, both the Courts below convicted the petitioners.
No independent witness was examined and all the witnesses are close
relatives of P.W.1. Therefore, he prayed for acquittal of the accused
persons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
7.Per contra, the learned Government Advocate(Crl.side)
appearing for the respondent police would submit that P.W.2 and P.W.3
are eye witnesses to the occurrence. They categorically deposed that the
petitioners set fire on the thatched shed, under which, the car was parked
by P.W.1. Immediately, P.W.2, called fire services and all the general
public attempted to stop the fire. However, entire thatched shed and car
were completely burned. Therefore, P.W.1 had lost his car and thatched
shed to the tune of Rs.1,25,000/-. Therefore, the prosecution proves its
case beyond any doubt and the Courts below rightly convicted the
petitioners and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. Hence,
he prayed for dismissal of this revision case.
8.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the
record.
9.It is seen that due to previous enmity, the petitioners set ablaze
thatched shed and car, which wa parked under thatched shed, belonged to
P.W.1. On 19.08.2012, at about 11.00 pm, all the three petitioners went
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
to the scene of crime and set fire on thatched shed and car, which was
parked under thatched shed. Though P.W.1 was not eye witness, he
deposed that the car and thatched shed were owned by him. He further
deposed that on 19.08.2012, at about 06.00 pm., when son of P.W.1 was
proceeded to his house by car, near Srimankulam, the petitioners parked
their bike on the road and they were sitting in a bridge. When the son of
P.W.1 asked them to move their vehicles, the petitioners entered into a
wordy quarrel with him. After reaching his home, he parked the car
under thatched shed. On the same day, at about 11.00 pm., he heard the
sound out side of his house and came out from his house and he was
informed that the petitioners herein had set ablaze on thatched shed and
also the car. Therefore, all the general public attempted to stop the fire
and immediately informed the fire services and they came and stop the
fire. However, the entire thatched shed and car were burned out and on
the same day early morning at about 02.00 am., he lodged complaint
before the respondent police.
10.On perusal of evidence of P.W.2 & P.W.3 revealed that the
accused persons had set fire on the thatched shed and car at about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
11.00pm., on 19.08.2012. Immediately, all the general public attempted
to stop the fire, but failed. Thereafter, fire service persons came and
stopped the fire. Thereby, the prosecution categorically proved its case
beyond any doubt. Hence, both the Courts below rightly convicted the
petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 4 of TNPPDL Act.
At the time of suspending the sentence, this Court directed the petitioners
to deposit Rs.20,000/- each. The said condition was duly complied with.
11.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit
that the petitioners are ready and willing to deposit the remaining amount
to the loss caused to the defacto complainant.
12.Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court is inclined to modify the sentence alone. Accordingly, the
conviction is hereby confirmed as against the petitioners. Insofar as the
sentence is concerned, the same is reduced from two years to the period
already undergone by the petitioners, on condition that the petitioners
shall deposit Rs.25,000/- each to the credit of S.C.No.36 of 2014 before
the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, on or before
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
02.05.2023. On such deposit, P.W.1 is permitted to withdraw the entire
amount including the amount already deposited by the petitioners while
suspending the sentence, by way of filing proper application. If the
petitioners failed to deposit the said amount within the stipulated time,
the sentence imposed on the petitioners will be restored, without any
further reference to this Court and the respondent police is at liberty to
secure the petitioners to serve the remaining period of sentence.
13.In the result, this criminal revision case is partly-allowed.
21.04.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gns
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
To
1.The Assistant Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli
2,III Additional Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli
3.The Inspector of Police,
Sivanthipatti Police Station,
Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.
gns
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.788 of 2017
21.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
