Madras High Court
Tamilselvan vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.473 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.473 of 2023
Tamilselvan ... Appellant
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Railway Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
(Crime No.05/2019) ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records and set aside the order of conviction passed against
the appellant/accused No.2 in S.C.No.81 of 2019 dated 31.03.2023 on the
District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai and allow the Criminal
Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Shivakumar
For M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates
For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajakumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
Crl.A.No.473 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order
dated 31.03.2023, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge,
Mayiladuthurai, in S.C.No.81 of 2019, thereby convicting the appellant
for the offences punishable under Sections 294(4), 450, 332, 353, 506(i)
of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of
Destruction and Loss) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the TNPPDL
Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.02.2019 at about
23.25 hours, when the victim was on duty at level crossing gate No.212
in between Sirkazhi and Kollidam railway station, the accused came there
and quarreled with the victim and asked him to open the railway gate,
when it was closed for the passing of Uzhavan Express. The victim
informed the accused that the Uzhavan Express was about to come and as
such, he refused to open the gate. However, the accused trespassed into
the gate room and scolded the victim with filthy language and also
assaulted him. They also threatened him with dire consequences. On the
complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.5 of 2019 for
the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 450, 353, 332, 506(1) and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. After completions of investigation, the
respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the
trial Court in S.C.No.81 of 2019.
3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had
examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7.
The prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 & M.O.2. On
the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were
marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial
Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 332, 353, 450, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act
and sentenced them as follows :-
S.No. Conviction Sentence
1 Section 294(b) of to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
IPC undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month.
2 Section 450 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of seven years and to pay fine of
Rs.3,000/-.
3 Section 332 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of two years
4 Section 353 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year.
5 Section 506(i) of to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
IPC period of one year.
6 Section 3(1) of to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
S.No. Conviction Sentence
TNPPDL Act period of three years to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the
same, the appellant filed the present appeal.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that there are two accused in which, the appellant is arrayed as second
accused. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 01.02.2019 at about
11.25 P.M. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the Uzhavan
Express was about to cross the gate and at that time, no occurrence was
taken place as alleged by the victim and a false case has been foisted as
against the appellant. According to the victim, the accused attacked him
by using railway phone on his head due to which, it was completely
damaged. But only through the railway phone, the victim informed to the
Station Master about the occurrence. Thereafter, the Station Master had
tried to contact the complainant at about 11.30 P.M. But the complainant
failed to pick the call. Further, nearby gate keeper also tried to contact the
complainant but there was no response. The complainant was under
influence of alcohol and it was questioned by the appellant and as such
false complaint has been foisted against the appellant herein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
4.1. He further submitted that even according to the case of the
prosecution, after the occurrence, the complainant was working there for
another eight hours and only thereafter he had lodged the complaint.
Thereafter, he had gone to hospital for treatment. Further the doctor
found no injury on his head and the doctor opined that the injuries
sustained by the appellant are simple in nature. Therefore, the prosecution
miserably failed to prove any of the charge. He further submitted that
there was absolutely no evidence to show that the appellant trespassed
into the complainant's room to attract the offence punishable under
Section 450 of IPC. Even then, without considering the above facts and
circumstances, the trial Court mechanically convicted the appellant.
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent submitted that the accused were under the
influence of alcohol and they trespassed into the complainant's room
while he was on duty as gate keeper at level crossing gate No.212 in
between Sirkazhi and Kollidam railway station and threatened the victim
to open the gate. When the complainant refused to do so, they brutally
attacked the victim. The victim was examined as P.W.1. He categorically
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
deposed about the occurrence and the prosecution proved the case. The
evidence of P.W.1 was also duly corroborated by P.W.2 to P.W.4. P.W.2
is the Station Master and when he called the complainant there was no
response. Immediately, he informed the nearby gate keeper who was
examined as P.W.3. Thereafter, P.W.3 informed P.W.4, who attended the
earlier shift before the complainant on the gate No.212. He rushed to the
gate No.212 and he found that the personal phone of P.W.1 and the
railway phone were broken. P.W.1 also informed that the accused
attacked him for the reason that he refused to open the gate when the
Uzhavan Express was about to cross the gate. Therefore, the prosecution
categorically proved the case and the trial Court rightly convicted the
appellant and another and it doesn't deserve to be set aside.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court.
7. The complainant was examined as P.W.1. Admittedly he was
on duty as gate keeper on 01.02.2019 in L.C. gate No.212 in between
Sirkazhi and Kollidam railway station. The railway gate was closed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
crossing of Uzhavan Express at about 11.25 P.M. At that juncture, the
accused came there under the influence of alcohol and shouted at the
complainant to open the railway gate. The victim replied that the
Uzhavan Express was about to cross the gate and refused to open the
gate. Immediately, both the accused scolded the victim with filthy
language and also attacked him. Thereafter, both had damaged the
railway phone as well as the complainant's personal phone. The railway
phone used for inter communication between the gate keepers and the
Station Master. Both the accused also attacked the victim by slapping
him. Therefore, he could not have been able to inform the same to the
nearby Station Master. When the Station Master try to contact the
complainant, the complainant did not pick the phone, since it was
damaged.
8. The Station Master was examined as P.W.2. He deposed that
while he contacted P.W.1 to enquire about PUCSN goods vehicle, the
victim did not pick up the phone call. Therefore, P.W.2 contacted nearby
gate keeper viz., LC gate No.213, who was examined as P.W.3 and
informed that he was not able to contact the complainant. Immediately
P.W.3 called the person who attended the duty before the complainant,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
who was examined as P.W.4. P.W.4 took the phone and immediately, he
rushed to gate LC No.212. He found that the railway phone as well as the
personal phone of the complainant were broken down and as such P.W.1
was not able to pick the phone call, when P.W.2 and P.W.3 contacted
him.
9. On perusal of the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.4, it is clear
that the accused went to gate No. LC 212, where the complainant was
doing gate keeper duty and asked him to open the railway gate in order to
cross the railway line. But the complainant refused to open the gate since
at that time Uzhavan Express was about to cross the railway gate.
Therefore, there was a quarrel between them and the accused beat him by
slapping on his cheek. When the complainant attempted to call the
Station Master, the accused snatched the railway phone as well as the
personal phone of the complainant and had broken down. Therefore, both
the phones were not in working condition, when P.W.2 and P.W.3 tried to
contact P.W.1. Therefore, the prosecution, categorically proved the
charges for the offences under Sections 294(4), 332, 353, 506(i) of IPC
and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
10. Further, there was no evidence to prove the offence under
Section 450 of IPC. P.W.1 and P.W.4 did not even whisper that the
appellant entered into the complainant's room and attacked him.
However, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 450 of IPC also. The learned counsel appearing
for the appellant specifically contended that the railway phone and the
personal phone of the complainant were in working condition even after
the alleged occurrence and the complainant contacted the Station Master.
Therefore, there was no damage to the phones allegedly caused by the
accused.
11. On perusal of the deposition of P.W.1, it is clear that
immediately after crossing the Uzhavan Express, the gate was opened for
the accused to cross the railway line. Before that the accused compelled
complainant to open the railway gate. When the complainant refused to
do so, they scolded him with filthy language and also slapped him.
Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant cannot be considered legitimate.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
12. That apart, after his shift time, the complainant went to the
police station to lodge complaint. He lodged complaint and the same was
marked as Ex.P.1. Thereafter, FIR got registered and the same was
marked as Ex.P.6. The Investigation Officer went to the scene of
occurrence and prepared observation mahazar and seizure mahazar. The
observation mahazar was marked as Ex.P.2 and the seizure mahagar was
marked as Ex.P.3. They seized both the phones and the same were
marked as M.O.1 & M.O.2.
13. After lodgment of complainant, the victim was subjected for
medical treatment. He visited railway hospital, where the doctor who
treated him opined that the injuries sustained by the complainant are
simple in nature. He issued wound certificate which was marked as
Ex.P.5. The doctor, who treated the complainant was examined as P.W.7.
He deposed that he found injuries on the complainant's chest, face and
left ear. The complainant had told him that unknown persons had
attacked him with their hands and legs. However, there was no fracture
on the complainant's body. Therefore, the prosecution categorically
proved the charges except for the charge under Section 450 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
14. In view of the above discussions, the conviction imposed on
the appellant by the order dated 31.03.2023, passed by the learned
District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in S.C.No.81 of 2019, for
the offences punishable under Sections 294(4), 332, 353, 506(i) of IPC
and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, are hereby confirmed and the
conviction and sentence imposed for the offence under Section 450 of
IPC, is hereby set aside. Insofar as the sentence for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(4), 332, 353, 506(i) of IPC and Section
3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, are concerned, considering the nature of the
offences committed by the appellant, this Court is inclined to modify the
sentence as follows :-
S.No. Conviction Modified Sentence
1 Section 294(b) of to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to
IPC undergo rigorous imprisonment for one
month.
2 Section 332 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of one year
3 Section 353 of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months.
4 Section 506(i) of IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of six months.
5 Section 3(1) of to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
TNPPDL Act period of one year and to pay fine of
Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one month.
The above sentences shall run concurrently. The trial Court is directed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
secure the appellant for the purpose of sentencing him to undergo the
reduced/modified period of sentence. Further, the period of remand
already undergone by the appellant, if any, is ordered to be set off against
the sentences imposed.
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.
20.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
To
1. The District and Sessions Judge,
Mayiladuthurai
2. The Inspector of Police,
Mayiladuthurai Railway Police Station,
Mayiladuthurai District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
20.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/07/2025 11:20:57 am )
