Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3.7.The Trial Court, after hearing both sides and after perusing the records, found that there are sufficient grounds available on record to presume that the accused persons committed the offences and hence, framed charges under Sections 449, 294(b) and 302 of IPC and Section 3 of 'Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992' [henceforth 'TNPPDL Act' for the sake of brevity] against A1; under Sections 449, 294(b), 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 against A2 and under Sections 449, 342, 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act, 1992 against A3. The charges were read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.A.NO.265 OF 2017 and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial was ordered.

3.11.The accused side, in order to prove their defence, examined 3 witnesses as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and marked 3 documents as Ex-X.1 to Ex- X.3. Further, certified copy of intimation book dated May 15th, 2012 has been marked as Ex-D.1 during the cross-examination of Sub-Inspector of Police (P.W.11).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.A.NO.265 OF 2017 3.12.The Trial Court, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials on record, came to the conclusion that A1 and A2 committed the offences punishable under Sections 449, 304 (II) of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC, and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act; and that A3 committed the offences punishable under Sections 449, 304 (II) of IPC read with Sections 34 and 342 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. Accordingly, the Trial Court imposed punishment as stated in paragraph no.1.

19.1.P.W.14 in his cross examination has admitted that he https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.A.NO.265 OF 2017 prepared Ex-P.3 and Ex-P.19 wherein it has been mentioned as M.O.3 to M.O.7 were seized from Muniappan's (A1) house. From a conjoint reading of evidence of P.W.14, Ex-P.3 and Ex-P.19, it is clear that M.O.4 to M.O.7 were neither seized from P.W.1's house nor from the place of occurrence. As alluded supra, seizure of M.O.3 to M.O.7 is doubtful. Charges under Sections 449 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act against accused

21.3.Further, P.W.2 has asserted in her deposition that the occurrence happened in Palaniappan's ploughed land. The same can be inferred from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 to P.W.5. Therefore, the prosecution has not satisfactorily proved the trespass of the accused into the deceased's house.

21.4.In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused trespassed into the deceased's house and caused damages to M.O.3 to M.O.7 and therefore, failed to prove the offences punishable under Section 449 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. Therefore, Trial Court's conclusion that accused committed offences under Section 449 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act is not justifiable. Hence, the said findings is to be interfered with and set aside. Accordingly, this Court sets aside the same and acquits the accused from the charges under Section 449 of IPC and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis  CRL.A.NO.265 OF 2017 Charges against A3 under Sections 342 and 304 Part (II) of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC