Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2683 (MAD)

Pappal v. State by. , The Inspector of Police

2025-06-20

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 23.03.2022, passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.6 of 2018, thereby acquitted the respondents 2 to 11 offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 452 , 323 & 324 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act (hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”. 2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant and the respondents 2 to 11 belong to the same village. While being so, on 07.06.2016 at about 11 p.m., when the appellant had put a Kolam in front of her house, all the respondents 2 to 11 came there and completely destroyed it. When it was questioned by the appellant, on the next day viz., on 08.06.2016, all the respondents 2 to 11 came to her house at about 5.30 p.m., and trespassed into her house. One of the accused caused damage to the window and plastic bucket with iron rod and caused damage to the tune of Rs2,800/-. When the defacto complaint and others questioned the act of the respondents 2 to 11 herein, they attacked them by hands and using iron rod. The other accused also attacked three other relatives of the appellant. On hearing the noise, when the neighbors were arrived there, all the accused persons flew away from the scene. 3. On the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.321 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 324, 323, 452, 354 of IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.6 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 324, 323, 452, 354 of IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act, as against the respondents 2 to 11 and charged for the offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 323 , 452 of IPC Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act, as against the respondent 2 to 5 and 7 to 11 and charged for the offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 324 , 452 of IPC Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act as against the sixth respondent. 4. 4. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 & M.O.2. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondents not guilty and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the victim/P.W.1 filed the present appeal. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and other injured persons were examined as P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.10. They categorically deposed about the specific overtact of the respondents 2 to 11. The accident register of the injured persons were duly marked as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8. The doctor who treated the victims was examined as P.W.7. Therefore, the prosecution had categorically proved the charges as against the respondents 2 to 11 herein. In fact, the broken household articles were produced as material objects in M.O.1 and M.O.2. Even then, the trial Court without believing the version of the prosecution mechanically acquitted the respondents 2 to 11. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 11 submitted that there are contradictions between the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10. The medical evidence also did not support the case of the prosecution. The doctor who treated P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10 also failed to support the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the respondents 2 to 11 and it doesn't require any interference from this Court. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 8. The first injured was examined as P.W.1 and she categorically deposed as follows : Thus it is clear that all the respondents 2 to 11 had specific overtact and nothing elucidated from P.W.1 during her cross-examination to disprove the charges. 9. Another injured was examined as P.W.2. He also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and specifically stated about the overtact of the respondents 2 to 11. The third injured was examined as P.W.3 and he also categorically deposed and corroborated with the evidence of P.W.1 & 2. Another eye witness was examined as P.W.4. She deposed that when the respondents 2 to 11 destroyed the Kolam (nfhyk;) put up by P.W.1, she questioned them. Therefore, on the next day they came there and trespassed into the house of the P.W.1 and attacked them. Another eye witness was examined as P.W.4. She deposed that when the respondents 2 to 11 destroyed the Kolam (nfhyk;) put up by P.W.1, she questioned them. Therefore, on the next day they came there and trespassed into the house of the P.W.1 and attacked them. They also caused damage to the house hold articles and the window. 10. P.W.5 was examined as Mahazar witness and he supported the case of the prosecution. In the presence of P.W.5 the material objects were taken and produced before the trial Court. P.W.6 had deposed about the arrest of some of the respondents. The Doctor who treated the injured was examined as P.W.7. He categorically deposed about the injury sustained by the appellant and recorded the accident register which were marked as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8. However, the trial Court without any reason mechanically acquitted the respondents 2 to 11 herein from all the charges on the flimsy grounds. 11. The occurrence was taken place at about 5.30 p.m., on 08.06.2016. Immediately, P.W.1 lodged complaint at about 6 pm., and the same was registered in Crime No.321 of 2016. Thereafter, at about 6.40 p.m., the injured went to the Government Hospital, Avinasi. The distance between the scene of occurrence and the police station at about 12 km., and distance between the police station and the hospital at about 25 k.m. The trial Court did not believe that the complainant within one hour went to Police Station from the scene of occurrence and thereafter within 40 minutes time, the injured went to the hospital for treatment. Further the FIR was reached the trial Court on 09.06.2016 at about 5.30 p.m. 12. There is absolutely no discrepancies not to believe the case of the prosecution. Immediately after the occurrence, the complaint was lodged and thereafter they went to the hospital. Further, there was no delay in sending the FIR to the trial Court. It reached the Court within 20 hours from the date of registration. Simple contradictions in the specific overtact of the accused are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Since, there are ten accused persons, P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10 cogently deposed about the specific overtact of the accused 1 to 10. It reached the Court within 20 hours from the date of registration. Simple contradictions in the specific overtact of the accused are not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Since, there are ten accused persons, P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10 cogently deposed about the specific overtact of the accused 1 to 10. Therefore, the trial Court miserably failed to convict the respondents 2 to 11 for the offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 452 , 323 & 324 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act (hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”. 13. This Court found that the respondents 2 to 11 guilty for the offences under Sections 147 , 148 , 452 , 323 & 324 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act (hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”. The first respondent police is directed to secure the respondents 2 to 11 and produce before this Court on 20.06.2025 for questioning of sentence. The Registry is directed to issue Non Bailable Warrant to secure the respondents 2 to 11 to produce before this Court. 14. Post the matter on 20.06.2025, for the appearance of the respondents 2 to 11 for questioning of sentence.