Madras High Court
Pappal vs The State By on 13 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.177 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.177 of 2023
Pappal ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State by.,
The Inspector of Police,
Sevur Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
2. Ramkumar
3. Pandian @ Thangapanidian
4. Ramachandran
5. Dhanapal
6. Manikandan
7. Rajan
8. Ramesh
9. Ramesh
10. Krishnamoorthy
11. David ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the order of acquittal dated 23.03.2022 passed in S.C.No.6 of 2018
on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur, by allowing this Criminal Appeal.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
Crl.A.No.177 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.Manojkumar
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Rajakumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 to R10 : Ms.N.Gayathri
For Mr.R.Thamarai Selvam
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order
dated 23.03.2022, passed by the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.6 of 2018, thereby acquitted the
respondents 2 to 11 offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 & 324 of
IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage
and Loss) Act (hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”.
2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant and the
respondents 2 to 11 belong to the same village. While being so, on
07.06.2016 at about 11 p.m., when the appellant had put a Kolam
(nfhyk;) in front of her house, all the respondents 2 to 11 came there
and completely destroyed it. When it was questioned by the appellant, on
the next day viz., on 08.06.2016, all the respondents 2 to 11 came to her
house at about 5.30 p.m., and trespassed into her house. One of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
accused caused damage to the window and plastic bucket with iron rod
and caused damage to the tune of Rs2,800/-. When the defacto complaint
and others questioned the act of the respondents 2 to 11 herein, they
attacked them by hands and using iron rod. The other accused also
attacked three other relatives of the appellant. On hearing the noise,
when the neighbors were arrived there, all the accused persons flew away
from the scene.
3. On the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in
Crime No.321 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147,
148, 324, 323, 452, 354 of IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. After
completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the
same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.6 of 2018,
for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 324, 323, 452, 354
of IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act, as against the respondents 2 to
11 and charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 452 of IPC
Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, as against the respondent 2 to 5 and 7
to 11 and charged for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 324, 452 of
IPC Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act as against the sixth respondent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
4. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to
P.W.13 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The prosecution
also produced material objects in M.O.1 & M.O.2. On perusal of the oral
and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondents not
guilty and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the victim/P.W.1 filed
the present appeal.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and other injured
persons were examined as P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.10. They
categorically deposed about the specific overtact of the respondents 2 to
11. The accident register of the injured persons were duly marked as
Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8. The doctor who treated the victims was examined as
P.W.7. Therefore, the prosecution had categorically proved the charges
as against the respondents 2 to 11 herein. In fact, the broken household
articles were produced as material objects in M.O.1 and M.O.2. Even
then, the trial Court without believing the version of the prosecution
mechanically acquitted the respondents 2 to 11.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 11
submitted that there are contradictions between the deposition of P.W.1
to P.W.3 and P.W.10. The medical evidence also did not support the case
of the prosecution. The doctor who treated P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10
also failed to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial
Court rightly acquitted the respondents 2 to 11 and it doesn't require any
interference from this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
8. The first injured was examined as P.W.1 and she
categorically deposed as follows :-
@M$h; vjphpfisj; bjhpa[k;/ fle;j
2016k; Mz;L 6tJ khjk; 7e; njjp g{tjp.
tp$ah. ehd; Mfpnahh; vd; tPl;oy; ,Ue;njhk;/
khiy 6/00 kzpf;F g{tjp tPl;oy; nfhyk;
nghl;lhu;/ ,ut[ 11/00 kzpf;F uh$;Fkhu;.
unkc&;. fpUc;&zK:h;j;jp. uh$d; Mfpnahh;
fhyhy; nfhyj;ij mHpj;jhu;fs;/ eh';fs;
K:tUk; btspna te;J fc&;lg;gl;L nghl;l
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
nfhyj;ij Vd; mHpf;fpwPu;fs; vd;W nfl;nlhk;/
mjw;F mg;goj;jhd; mHpg;nghk; vd;W brhy;yp
Kiwj;J tpl;L ngha;tpl;lhu;fs;/ eh';fSk;
tpl;Ltpl;nlhk;/ kWehs; khiy 5/00 kzpf;F
M$u; vjphpfs; 10 ngUk; kw;Wk; xUtUk;
fhk;gt[z;il jhz;o mj;J kPwp cs;ns te;J
btspna th';fo vd;W rj;jk; nghl;lhu;fs;/
eh';fs; btspna te;jJk; $d;dy;
fz;zhoia cilj;jhu;fs;/ Vd;lh
fz;zhoia cilj;jPu;fs; vd;W ehd;
nfl;lnghJ kzpfz;ld; fk;gpahy; vdJ ,lJ
ifapy; moj;jhu;/ jpypg;. rhkpehjd;. uhFy;
Mfpnahu; vd; tPl;oypUe;J btspna te;J
Vd;lh mof;fpwPuf
; s; vd;W nfl;lhu;fs;/
vjpupfs; me;j K:tiua[k; fl;ilahYk;
ifahYk; moj;jhu;fs;/ gf;fl;il moj;J
cilj;jhu;fs;/ mUfpy; ,Ue;j gj;kehgd;.
rpd;d gHdp Mfpnahu; rj;jk; nfl;Ltu
vjphpfs; Xotpl;lhu;fs;/ cile;j gf;fl;
jw;nghJ vd;dplk; fhl;LtJ jhd;/ mJ
rh/bgh/1 cile;j fz;zho Jz;Lfs;
rh/bgh/2/ mjd; kjpg;g[ U:/2800-?MFk;/ ehd;
bjupe;j egu; K:yk; ehd; brhy;y brhy;y
g[fhu; vGjp nrt{u; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; g[fhu;
bfhLj;njd;/ me;j g[fhu; m/rh/M/1 MFk;/
g[fhu; bfhLj;Jtpl;L mtpdhrp muR
kUj;Jtkidapy; rpfpr;ir vLj;njhk;/ gpd;g[
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
nky; rpfpr;irf;fhf jpUg;g{u; muR
kUj;Jtkid brd;nwhk;/ ,J rk;ge;jkhf
Ma;thsu; tprhupj;jhh;/@
Thus it is clear that all the respondents 2 to 11 had specific overtact and
nothing elucidated from P.W.1 during her cross-examination to disprove
the charges.
9. Another injured was examined as P.W.2. He also
corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and specifically stated about the
overtact of the respondents 2 to 11. The third injured was examined as
P.W.3 and he also categorically deposed and corroborated with the
evidence of P.W.1 & 2. Another eye witness was examined as P.W.4.
She deposed that when the respondents 2 to 11 destroyed the Kolam
(nfhyk;) put up by P.W.1, she questioned them. Therefore, on the next
day they came there and trespassed into the house of the P.W.1 and
attacked them. They also caused damage to the house hold articles and
the window.
10. P.W.5 was examined as Mahazar witness and he supported
the case of the prosecution. In the presence of P.W.5 the material objects
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
were taken and produced before the trial Court. P.W.6 had deposed about
the arrest of some of the respondents. The Doctor who treated the injured
was examined as P.W.7. He categorically deposed about the injury
sustained by the appellant and recorded the accident register which were
marked as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8. However, the trial Court without any reason
mechanically acquitted the respondents 2 to 11 herein from all the
charges on the flimsy grounds.
11. The occurrence was taken place at about 5.30 p.m., on
08.06.2016. Immediately, P.W.1 lodged complaint at about 6 pm., and
the same was registered in Crime No.321 of 2016. Thereafter, at about
6.40 p.m., the injured went to the Government Hospital, Avinasi. The
distance between the scene of occurrence and the police station at about
12 km., and distance between the police station and the hospital at about
25 k.m. The trial Court did not believe that the complainant within one
hour went to Police Station from the scene of occurrence and thereafter
within 40 minutes time, the injured went to the hospital for treatment.
Further the FIR was reached the trial Court on 09.06.2016 at about 5.30
p.m.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
12. There is absolutely no discrepancies not to believe the case
of the prosecution. Immediately after the occurrence, the complaint was
lodged and thereafter they went to the hospital. Further, there was no
delay in sending the FIR to the trial Court. It reached the Court within 20
hours from the date of registration. Simple contradictions in the specific
overtact of the accused are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Since,
there are ten accused persons, P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10 cogently
deposed about the specific overtact of the accused 1 to 10. Therefore, the
trial Court miserably failed to convict the respondents 2 to 11 for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 & 324 of IPC and Section
3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act
(hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”.
13. This Court found that the respondents 2 to 11 guilty for the
offences under Sections 147, 148, 452, 323 & 324 of IPC and Section
3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act
(hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”. The first respondent police is
directed to secure the respondents 2 to 11 and produce before this Court
on 20.06.2025 for questioning of sentence. The Registry is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
issue Non Bailable Warrant to secure the respondents 2 to 11 to produce
before this Court.
14. Post the matter on 20.06.2025, for the appearance of the
respondents 2 to 11 for questioning of sentence.
13.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
Note:- Issue on or before
18.06.2025
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
To
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur,
2. The Inspector of Police,
Sevur Police Station,
Tiruppur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
13.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 18/06/2025 08:36:13 pm )
