Madras High Court
P.Manoharan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 15 June, 2023
Crl.A.No.664 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Crl.A.No.664 of 2016
P.Manoharan, aged 47/2011
S/o.Perumal Gounder
2/174, Vedapatty D-Perumal Palayam Post
Salem 636 122 ... Appellant
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by Inspector of Police
Veeranam Police Station Cr. No.657/2011
Salem District.
2.Rajamanickam, aged 50/2011
S/o.Perumal
3.Senthil, aged 36/2011
S/o.Ammasi
4.Palanisamy, aged 47/2011
S/o.Nalla Gounder
5.Sannasi, aged 49/2011
S/o.Kuppuswamy
6.Sakthivel, aged 30/2011
S/o.Sannasi
7.Arjunan, aged 43/2011
S/o.Krishnan
8.Rajendiran, aged 42/2011
S/o.Perumal Gounder
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.664 of 2016
9.Laskhmanan, aged 70/2011
S/o.Kandagounder
10.Periasami, aged 30/2011
S/o.Ramasamy
11.Muthukumar, aged 30/2011
S/o.Govindasamy
12.Elumalai, aged 27/2011
S/o.Palanimuthu
All residing at Valayakaranoor
Vedapatty D-Perumal Palayam Post
Salem 636 122. ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 372 of Criminal Proceedure Code against the
order of acquittal passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem
in SC No.14 of 2013 dated 07.03.2016 acquitting the
Respondents 2 to 12.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Devaraj
For Respondents : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate
R2 to R12 – No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal passed by the
learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem in SC No.14 of 2013 dated
07.03.2016, acquitting the Respondents 2 to 12.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.664 of 2016
2.The Defacto Complainant is the Appellant herein. The
Respondent/Police has lodged final report alleging that on 21.10.2011 at about
4.30 pm. Accused 1 to 11 they damaged public road situated in Vedapatty
Village, namely Vedapatti Pillayar Kovil Road, Kothazhapadi Mariyamman
Kovil Road, Kosavan Kuttai near Eluppatree. They damaged the road by
digging out pit at six feet length six feet width and 8 feet height. Damage value
assessed at Rs.20,000/-. While their illegal act questioned by witnesses
Manoharan, Rajamanikkam, Periyasamy, Dharmalingam and Ramar, these
accused abused witnesses in filthy language and terrified witnesses saying they
would set fire. Hence final report filed under Section 294(b), 506 (2) IPC and
3(1) TNPPDL Act.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for the first Respondent.
4.During the trial, prosecution has examined PW1 to PW11 and Ex.P.1
to Ex.P.9 were marked and on the side of the defence Ex.D1 to Ex.D6 were
marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.664 of 2016
5.Ex.D2 is the damage report given by B.D.O., Ex.D4 is the letter written
by Komalavalli to V.A.O., and Ex.D5 is the damage assessment report. It is a
case in counter. The counter case was numbered as Cr.No.601 of 2011. The
present case arises out of Cr.No.657 of 2011. With regard to charges under
Sections 294 (b) and 506(i) IPC, the learned trial Judge has categorically held
that none of the public were examined as witness to show that there is
annoyance to the public by abusing the witnesses in filthy language and also
noted that all the witnesses deposed that the accused threatened them that they
could kill them, after announcement of the election result, people convened
nearby Mariamman Koil, but no independent witness examined to prove 294(b)
506(i) IPC and also stated that the alleged damages are also noted by the BDO
and the same could be found from Ex.D2, Ex.D4 & Ex.D5 and also held that
though the prosecution witness have deposed that JCB was used, JCB was not
seized and produced by the Investigating Officer and hence the learned trial
Judge have categorically held that the case of the prosecution is a myth.
6.Initially the case was registered in Cr.No.657 of 2011 for the alleged
offences under Sections. 147, 149, 430, 427, 294 (b), 506 (i) IPC and after
investigation Sections 371, 395 & 506 (i) are dropped and final report has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.664 of 2016
filed only under Sections 294(b), 506 (2) IPC and 3(1) TNPPDL Act. Hence I
find that the reasons assigned by the learned trial Judge in holding that the
prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt cannot be
interfered.
7.The learned trial Judge has come to the conclusion that the evidence
adduced by the prosecution is infirm to prove the charges and hence I am of the
view that the order of acquittal does not warrant any interference as it is not
suffered by any irregularity or illegality warranting interference of this Court.
8.Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed.
15.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
sai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.664 of 2016
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN.J,
sai
To
1.The I Additional Subordinate Judge,
Salem
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Chennai 104
Crl.A.No.664 of 2016
Dated: 15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
