High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.630 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08.08.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.A.No.630 of 20231. Arjun2. Kesavan... AppellantsVs.The Inspector of Police,Kodavasal Police Station,Thiruvarur District.(Crime No.84/2020)... RespondentPRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the entire records in connection with the S.C.No.2 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur dated 20.04.2023 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.2 of 2021 dated 20.04.2023. For Appellants: Mr.MuthamizhselvakumarFor Respondent: Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public ProsecutorJUDGMENTThis Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Page 1 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 2023Judge, Thiruvarur, made in S.C.No.2 of 2021, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 283 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Property (Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”).2.The case of the prosecution was that P.W.1 lodged the complaint alleging that both the appellants had restrained the public pathway by parking their four wheeler and also damaged the plastic chair and check post building door. When it was questioned by P.W.1, both of them had scolded the defacto complainant with filthily language and also prevented the government officials from doing their duty. On the complaint lodged by P.W.1, P.W.6 registered the FIR in Crime No.84 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 283, 294(b), 353, 506(1) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.2 of 2021.3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. The prosecution had also produced material objects in M.O.1 to M.O.4. Page 2 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 2023On the side of the appellants, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found the appellants guilty for the offences punishable under Section 283 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act and also sentenced them as follows :-S.No.ConvictionSentence1 Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Actto undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.2Section 283 of IPCto pay fine of Rs.200/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.Aggrieved by the same, both the appellants filed the present appeal. 4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the complainant was examined as P.W.1 and another patrol officer was examined as P.W.2. General public were examined as P.W.3 to P.W.5 and they turned hostile. P.W.6 registered the FIR and P.W.7 is the Investigation Officer. During the cross examination, P.W.6 and P.W.7 had admitted that two days prior to the alleged occurrence, when the second appellant came in his two wheeler in a drunken state, his vehicle was seized by the patrol police and also it was refused to return back the Page 3 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 2023registration certificate of the two wheeler. When the same was questioned by them, the present false case has been foisted as against the appellants. He further submitted that the appellants also made categorical statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court. Even then, the trial Court without considering the above facts and circumstances, mechanically convicted the appellants. 5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that both the appellants are brothers and they parked their car in the public pathway and also refused to take away the car. When it was questioned by P.W.1, they had scolded them with filthy language and also prevented them from doing government duty. They also damaged the property belong to the police station. The general public were shown as list of witnesses and they were examined as P.W.3 to P.W.5. Though they did not support the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile, it would not mean that there is no evidence to believe the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant and it doesn't warrant any interference of this Court.Page 4 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 20236.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 7.Both the appellants are arrayed as A1& A2 and they are brothers. According to the case of the prosecution, on 01.03.2020, when P.W.1 and others were in patrol duty near Kodavasal Athikadai Check post, both the appellants had restrained the public pathway by parking their four wheeler and had also damaged the plastic chair and check post building door. Therefore, P.W.1 lodged complaint. Though the prosecution had shown the general public as witness in this case, they turned hostile before the trial Court while examining them as P.W.3 to P.W.5. 8.On perusal of the deposition of P.W.6, who registered the FIR, it is revealed that two days prior to the alleged occurrence, the second appellant was taken into police custody for riding his two wheeler under the influence of alcohol. When it was questioned by the appellants and when they asked for return of vehicle by producing original registration certificate, the police official had demanded money and as such there was a wordy quarrel between them. In order to circumvent the case, the respondent has registered this false case as against the Page 5 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 2023appellants. The investigation officer was examined as P.W.7. He also deposed and corroborated the evidence of P.W.6 that the two wheeler was seized from the appellants and it was not returned to them. Further, they also failed to conduct an alcohol test on the appellants. Therefore, in order to escape from the clutches of law, the present false case has been foisted against the appellants. Though the alleged occurrence happened in a common place, no witness was examined as independent witness. Further, the prosecution had examined the general public as P.W.3 to P.W5 and they turned hostile. Therefore, the absence of independent witness of the locality to the lend the corroboration to the evidence affects the credit worthiness of the prosecution case and had become fatal to the same.9.Further, the appellants made specific statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., before the trial Court as follows :-“The 1st accused replied as follows:-///CupypUe;J te;j vd; mz;zd; jz;zpaoj;jpUe;jhu;/ Mu;/rp/g[f; ,y;iy vd igf;if Flthry; nghyP!; !;nlrdpy; th';fp itj;Jf; bfhz;lhu;fs;/ tz;oapd; ftiu fpHpj;Jtpl;lhu;fs;/ g[f;if fhty; epiyak; brd;W fhz;gpj;Jk; tz;oia jutpy;iy/ ehd; Page 6 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 2023nfl;ljw;F js;sptpl;lhu;fs;/ gpwF 3 ehs; fHpj;J nf!; nghl;lhu;fs;/@The 2nd accused replied as follows:-/// igf;fpy; te;njd;/ Mu;/rp/g[f;if nghyPrhu; nfl;lnghJ b$uhf;!; Mu;/rp/g[f;jhd; ,Ue;jJ/ tz;oia vLj;Jf; bfhz;lhuhfs;/ ehd; xup$pdy; Mu;/rp/g[f;if !;nlrdpy; bfhLj;njd;/ tz;oia jutpy;iy/ ehd; ngha; nfl;nld;/ mbksz;l; nfl;lhu;fs;/ ehd; jutpy;iy/ mjdhy; tHf;F nghlg;gl;Ls;sJ///@However, the trial Court did not even consider the same. Therefore, it is clear that when the second appellant was riding his motor cycle under the influence of alcohol, the said vehicle was taken custody of the respondent. Thereafter, though the appellants produced the original R.C. Book, they did not return the vehicle. That apart, the respondent also foisted false case as against the appellants. Further the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond any doubt and as such, the appellants are entitled for acquittal in the present case. 10.In criminal jurisprudence, the burden is always on the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When two views are possible and the one favourable to the accused is equally plausible, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the accused. In the present Page 7 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 2023case, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden convincingly, and the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the infirmities in the prosecution case. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court in respect of all the charges against the appellants cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside.11.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed in the judgment dated 20.04.2023 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, made in S.C.No.2 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Section 283 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges in S.C.No.2 of 2021 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand cancelled. Page 8 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 202312.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. 08.08.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderrtsTo1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,Thiruvarur.2.The Inspector of Police,Kodavasal Police Station,Thiruvarur District.3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 9 of 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.630 of 2023G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.rtsCrl.A.No.630 of 202308.08.2025Page 10 of 10