Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2417 (MAD)

Maru. Somasundaram v. State

2025-04-30

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

body2025
JUDGMENT The accused in S.C.No.141 of 2015, on the file learned Principal Sessions Judge, the Court of Sessions, Tiruchirappalli District has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on him by the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2017: Sl. No. Offence Under Section Punishment 1 3(i) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 To undergo Simple Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay the fine, the accused to undergo simple imprisonment for 12 months. 2. The appellant herein was working as Professor in K.A.P.V. Medical College Hospital, Tiruchirapalli and the complainant, namely, Dr.Gomathi was working as Vice Principal in the same Medical College. On 31.07.2012, when the complainant was in the computer room, the appellant went into the room for which, the complainant questioned the appellant as to why he came there and asked him to leave. The appellant replied by saying whether it was her house and he would see afterwards. Pursuant to the previous motive between them, on 02.08.2012 at about 15.00 hours, the complainant parked her car bearing Registration No.TN-45-J-4935 Maruthi 800 Blue colour, in front of the co-operative society godown. At that time, the appellant threw stones over the front windscreen and both side window glass. Therefore, the glasses were borken due to which there was damage to the tune of Rs,14,000/-. Hence a case was registered in Crime No.1003 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3(i) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. After investigation, the investigating officer filed a final . report before the Sessions Court, Nagercoil The same was taken on file in S.C.No.141 of 2014. 3. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and the same was read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. 4. 4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2. 5.The learned Trial Judge after completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him in the prosecution evidence and the appellant denied as false. The learned trial judge, after considering the same, convicted the appellant as stated above. 6.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 , is not made out against the appellant for the reason that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant caused damages. According to the prosecution, P.W. 1 and P.W.2 were examined by the police officer at that time, and they deposed that the appellant caused damages to the vehicle. But, during their cross-examination, they deposed that they did not give the statement as recorded by the police officers; the same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel further submitted that the presence of P.W.2 on the date of occurrence has to be established by marking the documents. But no such document was marked. The same was admitted by the prosecution witnesses, and the same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no evidence available to convict the appellant under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 , that the appellant intentionally caused damages to the vehicle of P.W.1. The investigating officer also admitted that the complainant has not produced any document to show that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were working in the said college. He also did not prepare any mahazar or took photograph to show the damages caused to the vehicle of P.W.1. Further, P.W.1, the vice principal of the said college, admitted that, she had not produced any documents to show that the appellant was on duty on the date of the occurrence. Hence he seeks acquittal. 7.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.3 cogently deposed about the damages caused by the appellant to the car of P.W.1. Further, P.W.1, the vice principal of the said college, admitted that, she had not produced any documents to show that the appellant was on duty on the date of the occurrence. Hence he seeks acquittal. 7.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted that P.W.2 and P.W.3 cogently deposed about the damages caused by the appellant to the car of P.W.1. Their evidence corroborated with the damage certificate obtained by the prosecution under Ex.P11 and Ex.P6. The prosecution clearly established the above fact through the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W. 3, who have no motive against the appellant. Therefore, he seeks the confirmation of the sentence, and he also reiterated the reason assigned by the learned trial Judge to support his contention. Therefore, he seeks to confirm the judgment passed by the Court below. 8.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record and also the precedents relied upon by them. 9. The question in this case is whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and the Learned trial judge's conviction and sentence is sustainable or not? 10.On 02.08.2015 at about 15.00 hours, when P.W.1 parked her car bearing Registration No. TN-45-J-4935, Blue Maruti 800 in front of the co-operative society godown, the appellant caused damages to her car by pelting stones; therefore, the windscreen of the car was broken and caused damages to the tune of Rs. 14,000/-. The appellant caused damage due to the previous dispute between them relating to the use of the office computer of Medical College Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. The appellant was working as a professor in the KAPV Medical College Hospital, Tiruchirapalli, and in the said college, P.W.1 was working as a vice principal. Two days prior to the occurrence, the complainant was in the computer room and trying to download the question papers. At that time, the appellant herein entered into the computer room and wanted to take the floppy disc and the complainant refused to allow him to use the said computer. Infuriated by this the appellant is said to have caused damages to the car belonging to the complainant by pelting stones over the front windscreen and side mirrors. 11.Admittedly, P.W.1 has not seen the occurrence. Infuriated by this the appellant is said to have caused damages to the car belonging to the complainant by pelting stones over the front windscreen and side mirrors. 11.Admittedly, P.W.1 has not seen the occurrence. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1, she came to the place after hearing about the occurrence and asked the appellant to leave the place and hence, he left the place. Therefore, P.W.1 is not a witness to the occurrence. 12.P.W.2 deposed that he did not see the occurrence and no document also produced to prove the presence of the accused and the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.2 is as follows: 13.Even though P.W.3, and P.W.5 were examined on the side of the prosecution to prove the fact that the appellant caused damages to the vehicle, they deposed that they did not give any statement to the police officer with disclosure of the above damages caused by the appellant to the car of P.W.1. The relevant evidence is as follows: 14.Apart from that, the presence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not proved by producing the documentary evidence. P.W.8 admitted that he has not produced any attendance register, which reads as follows: 15. The prosecution has not treated the said witnesses, namely, P.W.3 and P.W.5 as hostile, and cross-examined them and without any cross-examination on this aspect, the prosecution's evidence that P.W.3 and P.W.5 did not give the statement before the police officer that the appellant caused damages to the car of P.W.1 is to be accepted. In view of the above discussion, the evidence of prosecution does not satisfy the requirement of law that the appellant caused damages to the glass of the car of P.W.1. In result, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 16.Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed with the following terms: (i)the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellant for the offences punishable under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 by the learned Special Judge, Principal Sessions Court, Nagercoil, vide judgment dated 13.12.2017 in S.C.No.141 of 2015, is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the charge framed as against him. Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to them forthwith. (ii)Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand terminated. Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to them forthwith. (ii)Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand terminated. The appellant shall be released forthwith, if his presence is not necessary in any other case.