Madras High Court
Thirumalaisamy vs State Rep. By on 10 November, 2009
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reservation 12.03.2019
Date of Judgment 11.06.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI
Crl.A.(MD)No.414 of 2009
1.Thirumalaisamy
2.Selvaraj
3.Kumar
4.Murugaraj : Appellants/A1 to A4
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station,
Sankarankovil. : Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code against the judgement passed by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, made in S.C.No.228 of 2009,
dated 10.11.2009.
For Appellants : Mr.Antony S Prabhakar
For Respondent : Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgement passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, made in S.C.No.228 of 2009, dated 10.11.2009.
2.According to the prosecution, PW2 is the driver of Veni Bus service and he is a resident of Kayalpattinam and on 09.12.2008, he took the bus TN-72-B-7949 from Tirunelveli and was driving the same towards Rajapalayam and when the bus was going near Veeriruppu, a person who was in a drunken mood fall in front of the bus and PW2 suddenly stopped the bus immediately and himself and the conductor attempted to lift the victim and at that time, there persons came there, who are A1 to A3 and they threw stones upon the front and back windscreen of the bus and caused damage to the tune of Rs.22,000/-. The Inspector of Police attached to Sankarankovil Taluk Police station has laid the charge sheet against the accused persons under Section 3 of TNPPDL Act r/w Section 34 IPC.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3.In the trial court, 8 witnesses were examined and 9 Exhibits and one material object were marked. When the accused were questioned about the incriminating circumstances, they denied the same. On the side of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was produced. The trial court convicted the accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the court and also sentenced the appellants to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and Section 34 of IPC. Aggrieved by the judgement passed by the trial court, the appellants are before this court.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5.The contention raised on the side of the appellant/ accused is that due to the accident, the accused caused damage to the vehicle and hence, offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act will not attract and the accused is entitled to acquittal. http://www.judis.nic.in 4
6.PW1 is the conductor and PW2 is the driver of the Bus bearing Registration No.TN-72-B-7949. PW1 gave the complaint to the police. PW1 and PW2 deposed that on 09.12.2008 they were on duty and PW2 drove the vehicle from Tirunelveli to Rajapalayam and when they reached Veeriruppu bridge, at that time one person came in a bicycle in drunken mood and dashed against the bus and he fell down in front of the bus and when they tried to take out the above person, at that time the accused came and caused damage to the front and backside of the glass of the bus and the value of the damage is Rs.22,000/-.
7.PW4 is cited as eye witness and he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. PW5 assessed the damage for the glass of the bus, which was damaged by the accused.
8.The learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A4 submitted that it is the case of the prosecution that only due to accident, the accused caused damage the front and back glass of the vehicle and to attract Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, there was damage caused to the public property during political parties or http://www.judis.nic.in 5 communal, language or ethnic agitation, demonstration or other activities and there was no provision to make a loss for the private property and also punishment for causing damage to the private property and in this case, the bus was damaged only due to the accident and hence, the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is not made out. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellants/A1 to A3 relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Logu @ Loganathan Vs. State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Thanjavur (Crl.A. (MD)No.273 of 2008, decided on 27.09.2018), wherein it has been held at para 8 as follows:-
''8.The very object of the amendment makes it very clear that the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, as stood before the amendment was enacted to prevent damage or loss caused to any private property during political parties or communal, language or ethnic agitation, demonstration or other activities. Originally, there was no provision to make a loss for the private property and also punishment for causing damage to the private property. Therefore, it was decided to include the private property in the amendment. The object of the Act makes it very clear that only http://www.judis.nic.in 6 during such political party agitations or ethnic agitations, demonstration or other activities or communal clash if any private properties are damaged to fix the liability on such groups, the amendment has been brought in. The object itself is to compensate the loss of the private properties for the damage caused by the said groups. Therefore, I am of the view that ordinary mischief caused by any individual, in a fight, they cannot be brought under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. It is a routine practice of the police to implicate even the individual, who allegedly causes damage of property worth about hundred rupees under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Such practice should be stopped herewith. The object of the Act has to be given preference. Not in every case, Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act can be invoked. Considering the above and also the facts of the case, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused''.
9.As per the prosecution case, the accused damaged the vehicle only after the injured met with an accident and only after the injured, dashed against the bus and sustained injury and the accused have broken the front and back glass with stone and caused the damage.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
10.It is to be noted that at that time of occurrence, there was no political parties or communal, language or ethnic agitation, demonstration or other activities. Hence, it is held that the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is not made out. Therefore, it is necessary to interfere into the findings given by the trial Court.
11.For all the reasons stated above, this court is of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
12.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence are set aside. The appellants/accused are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. The bail bond if any executed by them shall stand cancelled and the fine amount if any paid by them shall be refunded to them.
11.06.2019 vsd/er http://www.judis.nic.in 8 To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 9 T.KRISHNAVALLI, J.
vsd/er Crl.A(MD)No.414 of 2009 11.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in