THE HONOURABLE MR v. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Gobichettipalayam Police Station,Erode

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 03.08.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.No.563 of 20001.Gurusamy2.Rangasamy3.Senthil4.Eswaramoorthy5.Muthukumarasamy6.Ponnusamy7.Palani8.Chinnasamy ..Appellants/Accused 1 to 3and 5 to 9.Vs.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. byThe Inspector of Police,Gobichettipalayam Police Station,Erode District. .. RespondentPrayer:- This appeal has been preferred under Section 374[2] of theCr.P.C. against the judgment dated 28.06.2000 made in S.C.No.31 of 2000 onthe file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.For Appellant:Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan, Senior Counsel, for Mr.M.K.Vijayaraghavan For Respondent :Mr.V.R.Balasubramaniam Additional Public ProsecutorJUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.31 of2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Erode. The accused, whohave been charged and convicted under Section 147 IPC and under Section 3(ii) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act,1992, (herein after referred to as 'TNPPD Act') by the trial Court, arethe appellants herein. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The short facts of the prosecution case is that on 12.3.1999 atabout 11.00 pm to show their displeasure in raising the water tax from 35paise to Rs.1/65 per 1000 litres to the Lakkampatti punchayat union on thedate of occurrence, the accused formed themselves into an unlawfulassembly in front of Karattadipalayam junction at Erode-Senthyamangalammain raod, and damaged the gate-valve of the the water pipe leading fromGobichettipalayam panchayat union to Lakkampatti panchayat union and alsofilled the tank, in which the water is being collected, with sand andstone thereby causing a loss of Rs.5000/- to the Lakkampatti panchayatunion. 3.The case was taken on file by the learned trial judge and afterfurnishing copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., to the accused, had framedthe charges under Section 147 IPC and under section 3(ii) of TNPPD Act andwhen questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. Before the trial CourtP.W.1 to P.W.8 were examined, Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were exhibited and M.O.1was marked. 4.P.W.1 is the president of Gobichettipalayam Panchayat Union.According to him, he was informed by the employee of the panchayat unionviz. Rajendran on 13.3.1999 that about 6.00 am he found the gate valve ofthe pipe leading from Gobichettipalayam panchayat union to Lakkampattipanchayat union was damaged and the tank for filling water was also closedwith sand and stones and immediately he rushed to the place of theoccurrence and preferred a complaint Ex.P.1 with the police. 5.P.W.2-Rajendran is the informant of P.W.1 about the damages causedto the gate valve and to the tank. He would corroborate the evidence ofP.W.1 to the effect that when he went to the place of occurrence on13.3.1999 at about 6.00 am he found the gate valve of the pipe leadingfrom Gobichettipalayam panchayat union to Lakkampatti panchayat union wasfound broken and the tank intended for collecting the water was filled upwith sand and stones and the water reading meter was also found broken andthat he had immediately informed this to P.W.1.6.P.W.3 would depose that on 12.3.1999 at about 11.00 pm while he wentnear the place of occurrence for attending to the call of nature he hadseen M.O.1-tractor with stones and A5 & A6 were indulging in causingdamage to the lid of the tank and filled up the tank with sand and stoneswith the help of other accused.7.P.W.4 is also a chance witness. According to him, on 12.3.1999 atabout 10.30 pm while he was proceeding from Bangalaputhur toGobichettipalayam he saw a crowd near the place of occurrence and sawM.O.1-tractor parked near the place of occurrence loaded with stones andsand. He has also identified that A5 & A6 broke open the lock and damagedthe water tank with the help of iron rod along with 10 or 20 persons andthey have also caused damage to the gate valve. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.P.W.7 is the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam PoliceStation. According to him, P.W.1 came to the police station on 13.3.1999at about 1.30 pm and preferred Ex.P.1-complaint, which was registered byhim under Gobichettipalayam Police Station Cr.No.88/1999 under Section 430IPC and under Section 3(ii) of the TNPPD Act. Ex.P.6 is the FIR.9.P.W.8 is the investigating officer, who had visited the place ofoccurrence on 14.3.1999 at 5.30 pm and prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P.2in the presence of P.W.5 and had drawn Ex.P.7-rough sketch. He hasexamined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He had arrested theA1 on 14.3.1999 at 5.30 pm near Nallagoundanpalayam village and recordedthe voluntary confession statement of A1 in the presence of P.W.5. Theadmissible portion of the confession statement of A1 is Ex.P.3. On thebasis of Ex.P.3-confession statement, he had seized M.O.1-tractor, whichwas parked within the premisses of Lakkampatti panchayat Union officeunder Ex.P.4-mahazar in the presence of P.W.5. He has made arrangementsto assess the value of the damage caused by the acccused. Ex.P.5 is thevaluation report submitted by P.W.6.10.P.W.6, the then Health Inspector of Gobichettipalayam, as per theletter of requisition made by the Investigating Officer dated 28.7.1999,has assessed the value of damages caused to the gate valve and the lid ofthe tank as Rs.5000/- including labour charges and the supervisioncharges. Ex.P.5 is his valuation report, which was marked subject toobjection by otherside.11.After completing the investigating, P.W.8 has filed the chargesheet against the accused.12.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused underSection 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused would deny their complicity with thecrime. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learnedtrial Judge has held that the accused are guilty under Section 147 IPC andunder Section 3(ii) of TNPPD Act and sentenced them to undergo six monthsRI under Section 147 IPC and 4 years RI under Section 3(ii) of TNPPD Act,which necessitated the accused to prefer this appeal.13.Heard the learned senior counsel Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan appearing forthe appellants and learned Additional Public ProsecutorMr.V.R.Balasubramaniam and considered their respective submissions.14.Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether thefindings of the learned trial judge in holding that A1 to 3 and A5 to A9are guilty under Section 149 and under Section 3(ii) of TNPPD Act issustainable for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ '15.The Point:-According to the prosecution on the date of occurrenceie. on 12.3.1999 at about 11.00 pm the accused to show their anguish inrespect of the increase of water tax from 30 paise to 1.65 paise per 1000litres in the year 1968, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly andcaused damage to the public property like gate valve, water tank to thetune of Rs.5000/-. P.W.1, who had preferred Ex.P.1-complaint, is not aneye witness to the occurrence. According to him, P.W.2 has informed aboutthe damages to the public property like gate valve and water tank. Thecase of the prosecution hinges upon the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4, whoare chance witnesses. According to P.W.3 & P.W.4, A5 & A6 broke open thelid and with the assistance of the other accused, have filled up the watertank with sand and stone and also damaged the water reading meter. Butunfortunately in this case not even in the observation mahazar Ex.P.2 thealleged damage to the gate valve, water tank and water reading meter werementioned. Further the alleged damaged articles like gate valve, waterreading meter or the lid of the water tank were also not seized andproduced by the Investigating Officer in this case. The prosecutionrelied on Ex.P.5, the report for assessing the damages produced by P.W.6-Health Officer of Gobichettipalayam Municipality. According to P.W.6, hevisited the place of occurrence as per the letter of requisition made bythe Investigating Officer on 28.7.1999. He has also referred about theletter dated 28.7.1999 in Ex.P.5 under the reference column. In thecross-examination P.w.6 would admit that Ex.P.5-certificate was issued byhim on 3.8.1999. He would say that he prepared Ex.P.5 even on 13.3.1999itself. But he would admit that he has not mentioned in Ex.P.5, thatEx.P.5 was prepared on 13.3.1999 itself. He would further admit thatthere are Engineers available in the Gobichettipalayam Municipality toassess the damages and that the Commissioner has got powers to direct anyEngineer, Health Officer or Town Planing Officer, to assess the value ofthe damages. There is no authorisation letter of the Commissioner of theMunicipality authorising P.W.6 to assess the damages in this case wasproduced by him. Under such circumstances, there is absolutely noevidence on record to warrant conviction under Section 147 IPC and underSection 3(ii) of TNPPD Act against the accused. Point is answeredaccordingly.16.In fine the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence underSection 147 IPC and under Section 3(ii) of TNPPD Act passed by the trialCourt in S.C.No.31 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge,Erode, is set aside and the accused are acquitted from all the chargeslevelled against them. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ssvTo,1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Erode.2.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High, Madras.3. The Inspector of Police, Gobichettipalayam Police Station, Erode DistrictCrl.A.No.563 of 2000RS[CO]GP/13.8.