Madras High Court
Ramachandran vs State By on 29 February, 2024
Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
CRL.A.No.494 of 2017
1.Ramachandran
2.Parthiban
3.Nataraj Reddy ...Appellants/Accused 3,12,49
-Vs-
State by
Inspector of Police,
Arambakkam Police Station,
Arambakkam,
Thiruvallur District.
(Crime No.249 of 2013) ..Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C to set
aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur District in S.C.No.309 of 2014 dated
28.07.2017 to acquit the Appellants/Accused from the charges.
For Appellants : Mr.T.R.Ravi
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/16
Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
JUDGMENT
The appellants are the accused No.3, accused No.12 & accused No.49 in S.C.No.309 of 2014 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. Originally, there were a total number of 49 accused inclusive of the aforesaid appellants herein. The Trial Court by its judgment dated 28.07.2017 convicted the appellants and sentenced them as detailed hereunder:
Sl.No. Accused Offences Punishment
under Section 336 r/w 3 months simple
149 of IPC imprisonment
under Section 353 r/w one year rigorous
149 of IPC imprisonment
A3, A12 Section 3(1) of Tamil one year rigorous
1.
and A49 Nadu imprisonment with fine of
Property(Prevention of Rs.1500/- under Sec.3(1) of Damage and Loss) Act, TNPPDL Act in default 1992 of 3 months rigorous imprisonment
2. The aforesaid accused/appellants were acquitted from the other charges. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, they have preferred this Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is narrated as hereunder:
● On 04.08.2013, by evening hours at Arambakkam Police Station limits in the temple festival of Rakkampalayam Village. Mahalingam, Inspector of Police, Arambakkam Police Station, Santhosh Kumar, Sub-Inspector of Police, Padhirivedu Police Station, Mr.Kumar and Mr.Dhanvandhan, Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Vengatesh Armed Reserve Police were in the Bandobast duty.
● At about 21.45 hours, when the Orchestra programme was going on, the second appellant Mr.Parthiban was quarrelling with a person and the witness Mr.Mahalingam caught him and tried to send him into the Government vehicle TATA Sumo car bearing Registration No.TN-20-G-0798. The other accused gathered together after switching off the lights damaged the said vehicle by pelting stones, throwing wooden log and bottles on the said vehicle thereby damaged the wind shield and right side mirror of the vehicle. Damage was caused to the tune of Rs.5,000/-. The above said police officers Mahalingam, Dhanvandhan, Santhosh Kumar and Vengatesh were prevented from attending to their duties and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017 made them to feel insecured thereby A1 to A49 were charged under Sections 147, 148, 336, 353 r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. A final report was laid by the Inspector of Police, Arambakkam Police Station under the above said Sections of law.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Ponneri after taking cognizance of the case on file, on appearance of the accused, copies of the charge sheet and the documents relied upon by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvallur District.
5. The said case was taken on file in S.C.No.309 of 2014. After hearing both sides, charges were framed under Sections 147, 148, 336, 353 r/w 149 of IPC and under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. On appearance of the accused, when they were questioned, they pleaded not guilty. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
6. In order to substantiate the charges, 13 witnesses were examined and 21 documents were marked by prosecution side and one material object was marked on the defendant side.
7. P.W.1 Mahalingam is the Sub-Inspector of Rakkampalyam Police Station and P.W.2 Ettiyappan is the Village Administrative Officer of Rakkampalayam village at the relevant point of time and P.W.4 Moorthi is his Village Assistant, P.W.3 Vengatesh is an Armed Reserve Police attached to Arambakkam Police Station, P.W.5 T.Annamalai is also an Assistant of Village Administrative Officer : P.W.6 Sivalingam and P.W.7 Vijayan are independent witnesses : P.W.8 Jeganathan, P.W.9 Chandrasekar, P.W.10. Mastan and P.W.11 Giri are witnesses connected to Observation Mahazar and Seizure Mahazar : P.W.12 Jey Manokar is the Motor Vehicle Inspector inspected TATA Sumo car and issued Motor Vehicle Inspection Report [Ex.P.13] : P.W.13 R.Raja Robert is the investigating officer.
8. The learned Counsel, Mr.T.R.Ravi, appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that except P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.12, other witnesses did not support the prosecution case. It is further argued that P.W1 has not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017 specifically stated by which accused the police vehicle was damaged. It is the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, that at the time of occurrence, lights were switched off. It is further contended that the accused who were convicted namely Ramachandran, Parthiban and Nataraj Reddy used to go to police station often with other persons. Because of their familiarity, they were dragged to the case unnecessarily when thousands of people had gathered for the temple festival. A false case was foisted only against the accused and convicted as mentioned supra. It is highly impossible to identify the accused with reference to their specific overt act as a large number of people in thousands had gathered for the temple festival. Due to the above said reasons, he pleaded that the charges against the above said accused are not proved beyond reasonable doubt and prayed to allow this appeal by setting aside the conviction and sentence.
9. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Muniyandi and others Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police reported in 2017(1) Law Weekly (Crl.) 885. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
10. Per contra, Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, the learned Government Advocate(Crl. Side) strenuously argued that the witnesses P.W.1 Mahalingam and P.W.3 Vengatesh have specifically spoken about the overt acts of the above said accused. P.W.12 Jey Manokar, the Motor Vehicle Inspector in his evidence would state that he inspected the above said TATA Sumo car and he has given the damage details of the vehicle in his Inspection Report. It is further argued that based on the evidence of the above said witnesses, the trial Court rightly convicted the above said accused in accordance with law.
11. It is the evidence of P.W.1 Mahalingam, Sub Inspector of Police, Rakkampalayam Police Station, that on 04.08.2013, when he was in bandobast duty at the Rakkampalayam Village temple festival along with Dhanvandhan, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Kumar, Padhirivedu Police Station Sub-Inspector Santhosh Kumar and Home Guard Police Vengatesh. Permission was granted to conduct only Orchestra in the temple festival. Some of the accused had made arrangements for dance programme. He told the villagers that no permission was granted for conducting dance https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017 programme, while the orchestra programme was going on. At about 09.45 p.m., Parthiban and other persons were quarrelling. During the process of sending Parthiban into the government vehicle, some of the accused and other persons gathered unlawfully by abusing the police, threw bottles, wooden log, pelted stones and switched off all the lights and tried to assault the police. He stated that Nataraj, Sankar, Partibhan, Ramachandran, Selvam, Masilamani, Kumaravel, Gnanasekar, Parandhaman, Arumugam and some other persons had made arrangements to conduct the dance programme. He identified the above said persons along with other persons that they threw bottles, stones and wooden log upon the vehicle and damaged the wind screens and right side mirror of the vehicle.
12. P.W.1 in his evidence has given the names of the 10 accused out of 49 accused. He has stated that the said accused had made arrangements for conducting dance programme while deposing about other details. P.W.1 stated that the said persons along with other persons gathered unlawfully, when accused Parthiban was sent to the vehicle they abused the police and tried to attack by throwing bottles, stones and wooden log were thrown.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
13. P.W.2 Ettiyappan, who was the then VAO of Rakkampalayam Village and other independent witnesses P.W.4 to P.W.9 did not support the prosecution case and all of them were treated as hostile witnesses by the prosecution.
14. P.W.3 Vengatesh is Armed Reserve Police Constable of Padhirivedu Police Station. He has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1. It is the evidence of P.W.3 that Nataraj Reddy along with other persons prevented the police from taking Parthiban into the vehicle and switched off all the lights and damaged the Government vehicle TATA sumo car with stones, bottles and wooden log thereby the wind screens and right side mirror were damaged.
15. During the cross examination of P.W.3, he too asserted that more than 1000 persons had gathered for watching orchestra programme. It is pertinent to note that except accused Nataraj Reddy, he was not in a position to identify the other accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
16. P.W.12 Jay Manokar, the Motor Vehicle Inspector would state that he inspected the above said TATA sumo car on 05.08.2013 and listed the damage details as follows:
"front wind glass broken; and right side front shutter glass broken".
17. Mr.R.Raja Robert, the Inspector of Police of Arambakkam Police Station, [P.W.13] is the investigating officer. It is his evidence that on 04.08.2013 about 23.00 hrs, on receipt of Special report of P.W.1, Mahalingam, Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.249 of 2013 under Sections 341, 147, 148, 294B, 336, 353 and 506(ii) IPC r/w Sections 3 and 4 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. First Information Report is Ex.P.12. On the next day, at about 8.00 a.m. in the presence of witnesses Chandrasekaran and Suresh, the observation mahazar [Ex.P.13] and rough sketch [Ex.P.14] were prepared by him. On 06.08.2013, Paranthaman (A4) and Mahadevan (A14) were arrested in the presence of witnesses Masthan and Giri. During interrogation, the confession statement of Mahadevan was recorded in the presence of witnesses P.W.10 Mastan and P.W.11 Giri. He sent the government vehicle https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017 for assessing the damages to the government workshop and obtained Motor Vehicle Inspection Report [Ex.P.11]. Other accused obtained anticipatory bail. He completed the investigation and laid a final report against the accused under Sections 147, 148, 336, 353 r/w 149 and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
18. During the cross examination of P.W.13, he would state that around 3000 persons had gathered at the temple festival.
19. During the examination of P.W.1, he identified Ramachandran, Parthiban and Nataraj alone and in common he stated that all other accused involved in the occurrence. It is discernible from the evidence of P.W.1 that more than thousand persons had gathered at the scene of occurrence to watch orchestra programme. When Parthiban was sent into the Government vehicle, they were prevented from doing so thereby they were deterred from performing the official duty. It is relevant to note that P.W.1, during his cross examination would state that as follows:
"Ch; gpur;rpid rk;ge;jkhf eluh$d;.
uhkr;re;jpud;. ghh;j;jpgd;. Mfpnahh;
mof;fo nghyP!; epiyak; te;J https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017 rkhjhdk; ngRthh;fs;/ me;j 3 egh;fis vdf;F ed;whf bjhpa[k; vd;gjhy; jhd;
mth;fs; bgaiu Twp rhl;rpak;
mspf;fpnwd; vd;why; rhpay;y/"
20. It is pertinent to note that ocular witnesses namely P.W.1 and P.W.3 have uniformly stated that around 1000, 2000 persons had gathered for the temple festival and watched orchestra programme. During the cross examination, when a question was posed to P.W.1 that as the appellants used to go to police station very often, and he told the names of only few accused, was answered in negative.
21. No doubt from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3, it is inferable that when the accused Parthiban was about to be sent inside the vehicle as he was quarrelling with some persons, in order to maintain law and order. It was made clear that the vehicle was surrounded by the public and in the said process, the vehicle was damaged. P.W.1 has not stated the accused by name with reference to the connected overt acts.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
22. It is the evidence of PW.3 Vengatesh that the accused Nataraj Reddy and other persons deterred the police from discharging their official duty and damaged the vehicle by throwing bottles, stones and wooden log thereby the wind screens and the right side mirror got damaged. When he was able to identify the accused Nataraj Reddy alone and on the other hand, he has stated that he did not know who was sent to the vehicle as it was dark. When his testimony is read as a whole, this portion of his testimony affects the creditability. In a way, his evidence is not probable. Therefore, his evidence is not believable.
23. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.13, it is in evidence that the government vehicle was encircled by the public to protect the accused Parthiban, when the accused Parthiban was about to be taken into the vehicle, the occurrence had happened. Most importantly, lights were switched off at the time of occurrence is the uniform evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.13. The appellants are the familiar persons who often used to go to Police Station and got acquittance with the Police. None of the ocular https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017 witnesses as mentioned supra has identified the accused with reference to their overt acts. It is relevant to refer to the observation made by the Apex Court in Masalti Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in A.I.R. 1965 S.C.202.
"Where a criminal Court has to deal with an offence involving a large number of offenders and a large number of victims, it is usual to adopt the test that the conviction could be sustained only if it is supported by two or three or more witnesses who give a consistent account of the incident. In a sense, the test may be described as mechanical; but it is difficult to see how it can be treated as irrational or unreasonable."
24. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is not safe to rely upon those portions of evidence of ocular witnesses. Based on the above said discussions, it is concluded that, the offences under Sections 336, 353of IPC and Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 Act were not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017
25. This Criminal Appeal is allowed. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court stands set aside.
29.02.2024 rjr https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/16 Crl.A.No.494 of 2017 R.KALAIMATHI, J.
rjr CRL.A.No.494 of 2017 29.02.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/16