Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: indian penal code section 353 in Durai @ Darwin vs The Inspector Of Police on 27 November, 2025Matching Fragments
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made in S.C.No.135 of 2013 dated 02.09.2022 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Kuzhithurai.
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.12.2012, while the defacto complainant was working as an Executive Officer at Pudukadai Panchayat, at around 03.00 p.m. the appellant / sole accused (hereinafter referred as 'accused') came to the office of the defacto complainant and questioned her about the delay in furnishing the information under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, abused her in filthy language, damaged telephone, plastic tray and plastic chairs available in the said office and also caused criminal intimidation and that thereby the accused had committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(1) IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act (hereinafter referred as 'TNPPDL Act').
7. The learned Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2022 convicting the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(1) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC; to undergo two years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 353 IPC; to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(1) IPC and to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm )
24. Regarding the offence under Section 353 IPC, Section 353 IPC penalizes assaulting or using criminal force against a public servant while they are carrying out their official duties. In the case on hand, P.W.5, in her complaint or in her evidence, has nowhere stated that the accused attempted to assault her or used criminal force against her. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, there is no specific evidence that P.W.5 was prevented from discharging her official duty.
26. The prosecution failed to address or clarify the material contradictions, but the learned trial Judge, without considering the above material aspects and the contradictions above referred and also the unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, has recorded conviction and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.
27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kuzhithurai in S.C.No.135 of 2013, dated 02.09.2022 is set aside. The appellant is not found guilty under Sections 294(b), 353 and 506(1) IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/12/2025 12:37:29 pm ) acquitted under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled and sureties, if any, shall be discharged. Fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellant.