High Court · 2025

CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023 JUDGMENT The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made in S.C.No.12 of 2021, dated 21.11.2023, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in the trial Court. 3. The prosecution's case is that on 10.01.2019, the defacto complainant, a Sub-Inspector, was on patrol duty with a government two-wheeler (TN-65-G-0820) and Constable Sathiyendran. Near Rameshwaram road, vehicles carrying passengers heading to watch an Ajith movie were passing by, cheering and shouting with their heads and arms out. The complainant advised them to not put their hands out. The accused, Mohammed Riyaskhan, driving Tavera No.TN-19-E-2206, ignored warnings, abused the officer in filthy language, and threatened to kill him by dashing his vehicle. He then drove into the complainant and the two-wheeler, causing injuries to the complainant's left elbow, left shoulder, right shoulder, and right ankle, and damaging the two-wheeler. The accused was handed over to the police station, leading to charges under Sections 294(b), 307, 332, 353 IPC, and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 20234. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram took the charge sheet on file in P.R.C.No.68 of 2020 and furnished the copies of the records under Section 207 Cr.P.C., on free of costs. The learned Judicial Magistrate finding that the offences under Section 307 I.P.C., and 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and after the compliance under Sections 208 and 209 Cr.P.C., had committed the case to the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.12 of 2021.5. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, being satisfied there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed the charges under Sections 294(b), 307, 353 I.P.C., and under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, or in alternative under Section 427 I.P.c., against the accused and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.6. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10 and marked one material objects as P.M.O.1. 3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 20237. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: (a) P.W.1 – Thiru.Nandhakumar – defacto complainant was working as Sub Inspector of Police in Kenikkarai Police Station and P.W.2 – Sathiyendran was a police constable attached to the said station on the date of occurrence. On 10.01.2019, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went to patrol duty near the Collector office bus stop, at about 01.45p.m, A film by name Viswasam got released on the previous date in the nearby Ramesh Theatre. So many persons came in car and vans from Rameshwaram to see the film. All of them by precluding their heads and hands through side door proceeded by shouting and cheering. P.W.1 stopped those vehicles and advised them not to preclude their heads or hands outside the vehicle. At that time, P.W.1 had parked his two wheeler Super Splendor bearing Registration No.TN-65-G-0820 belonging to the Government which was given for P.W.1's official purpose. One Tavera car bearing Registration No.TN-19-E-2206 has come in a similar fashion with shouting and cheering. P.W.1 stopped that vehicle and advised the inmates of the said vehicle. But at that time, the accused who was driving that vehicle had abused P.W.1 in filthy language and threatened him that he would kill him by dashing his vehicle. Thereafter the accused started his vehicle and dashed the same as against P.W.1 and also Super Splendor two wheeler which was parked nearby. As a result, P.W.1 sustained injuries on his left elbow, abrasion on his left 4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023shoulder and contusion on her right shoulder and right ankle. The two wheeler's handle bar, indicator and left side of the vehicle got damaged.(b) P.W.3 – Thiru.Udaiyan was running a sugarcane juice stall nearby Kenikkarai Police Station. P.W.4 – Tmt.Vanitha was running a pulp stall near Kenikkarai Police Station. P.w.5-Thiru.Thirupathi doing contract business was standing in the Collector Office bus stop. After seeing the incident, P.W.2 along with P.W.3 to P.W.5 seized the car apprehending the accused and handed over to P.W.8 – Thiru.Guganeswaran, Sub Inspector of Police who was on duty in Kenikkarai Police Station at that time. P.W.1 visited the police station and gave a complaint under Ex.P.1. P.W.8 issued a medical memo and directed P.W.1 to go to Ramanathapuram Government Hospital for treatment.(c) When P.W.7 – Dr.Abirami was on duty at about 02.20p.m., on 10.01.2019, P.W.1 came to the hospital and informed that a four wheeler had dashed against him. P.W.7 upon examining P.W.1 noticed 1x1 cm abrasion on left elbow. P.W.1 informed that he was having pain on his right shoulder. P.W.7 treated P.W.1 as out-patient and issued accident register under Ex.P.4 certifying that the injury suffered by P.W.1 is of simple in nature.5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023(d) On the basis of the complaint given by P.W.1, P.W.8 registered a case in Cr.No.7 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 332 and 307 I.P.C. and prepared the F.I.R. under Ex.P.5. He sent the original complaint and F.I.R., to the jurisdictional Court and copies to the higher officials.(e) P.W.9-Thiru.M.Kalayarasan, the then Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station received the copy of the F.I.R., took up the case for investigation and visited the occurrence place and prepared the observation mahazar under Ex.P.3 in the presence of P.W.6 – Thiru.Shanmuganathan and P.W.11 – Thiru.Govindharaj and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P.6. He examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and P.W.11 and recorded their statements. Since the accused was handed over at the police station, he sent the accused for remand. P.W.9 sent the accused's vehicle for the inspection of Motor Vehicle Inspector. After inspection, he received the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report under Ex.P.7 and examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector and recorded his statement. He produced the photographs of the car, along with C.D., under Ex.P.2. P.W.10 – Thiru.Prabhu, who assumed charge as Inspector of Police succeeding P.W.9, took up the case for further investigation and inspected the occurrence place and verified the observation mahazar and rough sketch prepared by his predecessors in office. He examined the witnesses and since they had reiterated the same version given before P.W.9, he has not chosen to record the same again. P.W.10 6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023examined P.W.7, Medical Officer, received the accident register extract and recorded her statement. He then submitted an alteration report on 13.12.2019 altering the offences from 294(b), 332, 427, 307 I.P.C., into 294(b), 332, 307 I.P.C., and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act under Ex.P.8. On 18.12.2019, he sent P.W.1's two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-65-G-0820 for motor vehicle inspection and received the report under Ex.P.9. He examined the Motor Vehicle Inspector and recorded his statement. P.W.10 also examined P.W.8 who registered the F.I.R., and thereafter submitted another alteration report altering the case to 294(b), 307, 332, 353, and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act under Ex.P.10. With the examination of P.W.11, the prosecution has closed their side evidence.8. When the accused was examined under Section 313(1) (b) Cr.P.C with regard to the incriminating aspects found as against him in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, he denied the same as false and stated that a false case has been foisted against him. The accused has further stated that he is not having defence evidence.9. The learned Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing both sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 21.11.2023, convicting the accused for the offence under Sections 323, 7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023353 I.P.C., and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and sentenced him to undergo one year Simple Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for four months for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C., to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for the period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 353 I.P.C., and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for nine months for the offence under Section 3 of TNPPDL Act and acquitted him for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this Criminal Appeal.10. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.11. Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.12 of 2021, dated 21.11.2023, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram,is liable to be set aside? is the point of consideration?8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 202312. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that a conjoined reading of evidences of so called eye witnesses P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.4 would reveal that the version of one eye witness contradicts another eye witness and the evidences of so called eye witnesses are full of contradictions, embezzlement and improbabilities and that the trial Court has miserably filed to consider the material contradictions. The learned Counsel would further submit that the respondent police sent the offending vehicle to inspection after the period of two months from the date of occurrence and that the alleged damaged vehicle of P.W.1 was sent to inspection after the lapse of 11 months since the date of occurrence and that the above would go to show that the respondent police had acted in a biased manner.13. The learned Counsel would further submit that the F.I.R., came to be registered at about 02.00p.m., on 10.01.2019, but the same reached the concerned Magistrate at about 10.30p.m, on that day, that there is a delay of 8 hours and that the prosecution has not offered any plausible reason or explanation for such dealy of 8 hours in submitting the F.I.R., to the concerned Court. The learned Counsel would further submit that the delay in forwarding the F.I.R., to the concerned Magistrate is fatal to the prosecution, that the prosecution has not chosen to examine the passengers who said to have travelled with the accused and the same would create doubt on the prosecution case and 9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023that the learned trial Judge without considering the above aspects in proper perspective, has proceeded in a mechanical fashion and recorded the conviction.14. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would submit that the injured cum defacto complainant and P.W.2 are the police officials and had deposed elaborately reiterating the complaint version, that P.W.4 had also deposed about the occurrence in tune with P.W.1 and P.W.2, that though P.W.3 and P.W.5 had turned hostile, they have given evidence reiterating the case of the prosecution, that the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to his injuries was corroborated by the medical evidence, that even assuming that there was some delay in sending the F.I.R., to the Court, in the absence of any prejudice shown by the accused that by itself is not a reason or ground sufficient enough to doubt the case of the prosecution and that the learned trial Judge considering the evidence available on record in proper perspective, has rightly convicted the accused.15. No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their evidence had reiterated the complaint version of the occurrence. Admittedly, P.W.3 and P.W.4 are running sugarcane juice and pulp stalls nearby Kenikkarai police station. As already pointed out, since P.W.3 and P.W.5, have not supported the case of the prosecution fully, 10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023they were treated as hostile. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, P.W.4 in her evidence would admit that she was not having any licence to run the stall and that she cannot run the stall without the help of the concerned police. P.W.4, in her evidence would say that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were on vehicle surveillance, the accused who had driven the van, dashed against P.W.1 and as a result, P.W.1 sustained injuries and that the accused had also dashed against the two wheeler and that herself along with others had handed over the accused and the accused's vehicle in the police station. In cross-examination, she would say that she does not know the colour and the model of the vehicle which dashed against P.W.1 and she does not know from where the said vehicle has come and more importantly she would say that after dashing of the vehicle, there were altercation, but she does not know the persons who were involved in wordy altercations. 16. P.W.3, in his chief examination would say that when P.W.1 was on vehicles surveillance, a van came from East to West and that the vehicle dashed against P.W.1 and as a result, P.W.1 fell down and sustained injuries. He would say that he does not know as to where P.W.1's vehicle got damaged. But during cross-examination made on behalf of the prosecution, P.W.3 would say that he does not know as to where the Tavera car bearing registration No.TN-19-E-2206 has come and dashed against P.W.1. He would say that a big size car has come, 11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023but he does not know the type of car nor its registration number. More importantly, he would say that he does not know as to whether the accused was available in that vehicle. During cross-examination made on behalf of the accused, P.W.3 would say that “rk;gtj;jd;W epiwa thfdA;fs; te;jJ. mjd; epwk; vd;dbtd;W bjhpahJ.”17. P.W.5, in his chief examination would say that when P.W.1 and P.W.2 were on vehicle surveillance, one Tavera van came from East to West and the same had dashed against P.W.1 and as a result, he sustained injuries and the said vehicle had also dashed against P.W.1's two wheeler. But he would sy that they had handed over P.W.1's damaged two wheeler and Tavera driver in the police station. But he could not identify as to whether the accused was the Tavera driver. In cross-examination made on behalf of the prosecution, he would say“ .......... Mdhy; fhiu epWj;jp Bgrpf;bfhz;oUe;jhh;fs;. me;j rkaj;jpy; me;j fhhpy; M$h; vjphp Kfk;kJ hpah!;fhd;jhd; nUe;jhh; vd;why; ehd; ghh;f;ftpy;iy. ehd; TwtJ jtW vd;Wk; Bkw;brhd;d lBtuh fhiu mth;jhd; Xl;o te;jhh; vd;Wk; ee;jf;Fkhh; thfdj;ij epWj;jp mwpt[iu TwpaBghJ vjphp mtiu ghh;j;J jfhj thh;j;ijfshy; jpl;odhh; vd;W brhd;dhy; vdf;F mJ gw;wp bjhpahJ............ ehd; TWtJ jtW vd;Wk; ehDk; mf;fk;gf;fk; nUe;jth;fSk; vjphp Kfk;kJ hpah!;fhid Rw;wp tisj;J gpoj;Bjhk; vd;Wk; gpd;dh; BkBy Fwpg;gpl;l lBtuh fhh;, m.rh.1d; nUrf;fu thfdk; Mfpatw;iw m.rh.1t[ld; fhty; epiyaj;jpy; midtUk; xg;gilj;Bjhk; vd;W brhd;dhy; 12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023thfdA;fis fhty; epiyaj;jpy; xg;gilj;Bjhk;. fhty; epiyaj;jpy; xg;gilf;fg;gl;l egh; vjphpah? vd;W vdf;Fj; bjhpahJ.”18. P.W.1, in his evidence, would admit that the occurrence place is a traffic congested place and there was a speed breaker and hence, vehicles could not proceed with speed in that place. As already pointed out, P.W.7, Medical Officer, who treated P.W.1 would say that P.W.1 had stated that the four wheeler had dashed against him and he sustained injuries. P.W.7, in his accident register under Ex.P.4 recorded “Alleged H/O RTA (four wheeler Vs Pedestrian) today around 1.45p.m., near collectorate bus stop.”19. Considering the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 along with the evidence of Medical Officer and Ex.P.4, accident register, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, P.W.1 had attempted to convert a minor road traffic accident into a murder attempt and public property damages case and succeeded in registering the case and prosecuting the case for those serious offences. The learned trial Judge, by observing that the ingredients for the offence of attempt of murder under Section 307 I.P.c., were not made out, modified the said offence into an offence under Section 323 I.P.C., and recorded the conviction.13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 202320. Section 323 I.P.C., penalises voluntarily causing simple hurt. In the case on hand, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the appellant, there is no evidence to show that the accused had voluntarily caused injuries to P.W.1. Moreover, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the accused had assaulted or used criminal force against P.W.1 to prevent him from doing his public duty. On considering the entire facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the genesis of the occurrence projected by the prosecution appears false and a road traffic accident came to be converted.21. Now turning to the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused had dashed his car against the two wheeler belonging to the Government and in possession of P.W.1 and caused damages to it. P.W.1 in his complaint as well as in his chief examination, would say that the handle bar, left side indicator and left side body of the vehicle got damaged. P.W.2 in his evidence would also reiterate the same. During cross-examination of P.W.1, it was asked whether the two wheeler which was produced before the Court was not having any damages, he would say that the left side indicator got damaged.22. It is the admitted case of the prosecution that the Tavera car was sent 14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023to motor vehicle inspection on 08.02.2019, nearly one month after the incident and the report under Ex.P.7 came to be received, wherein it is stated “wind screen glass broken, bumper dented were shown as damages”. It is also the admitted case of the prosecution that P.W.1's two wheeler was sent to motor vehicle inspection on 18.12.2019, after 11 months since the occurrence and the Motor Vehicle Inspector gave a report under Ex.P.9 stating that “damages could not be assessed, because vehicle accident on 10.01.2019.” P.W.10, Investigating Officer would also reiterate the same. When Tavera car was sent to motor vehicle inspection on 18.12.2019, the prosecution has not offered any reason or explanation for not sending P.W.1's two wheeler for inspection at that time. The prosecution has also not offered any reason or explanation for sending the two wheeler for inspection after the lapse of 11 months since the occurrence.23. The learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report under Exs.P.7 and P.9 cannot be looked into, since the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who issued the said reports were not at all examined before the trial Court and he would rely on two decisions of this Court one in Srinivasan Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station, Cuddalore District, made in Crl.R.C.No.1090 of 2020, dated 23.12.2020 and the other in N.Kinnaskandan Vs. State represented by 15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023Inspector of Police, Bungalowpudur Police Station, Gobichettipalayam, Erode District, made in Crl.R.C.No.1118 of 2020, dated 16.12.2020, wherein the learned Judge of this Court taking note of the fact that the Motor Vehicle Inspector who gave reports were not examined, has specifically held that in view of the non-examination of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and failure in marking the report through the appropriate witnesses, it cannot be conclusively hold that the documents are proved and as such the same cannot be considered. Even assuming for arguments sake, that the Motor Vehicle Inspector's reports can be taken into consideration, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the prosecution has miserably filed to prove that the two wheeler belonging to Government got damaged.24. Considering the above, there is no basis for convicting the accused under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The learned trial Judge, without considering the available evidence in proper perspective and without considering the material fact that the prosecution has not proved any damages caused to the two wheeler, erred in convicting the appellant/accused and as such, the impugned judgment convicting the appellant under Sections 323 and 353 I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is liable to be set aside.25. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the impugned 16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.12 of 2021, dated 21.11.2023 is set aside and the appellants/accused is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.14.11.2025NCC : Yes/NoIndex : Yes/NoInternet : Yes/No SSLTo1. The Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.2. The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.(MD).No.1101 of 2023K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.SSLPRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE INCRL.A(MD).No.1101 of 202314.11.202518/18