The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on witness testimonies and CCTV footage to prove the guilt of the appellant under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act 1992.

R. MALA, J.

1. The Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 04.09.2014 made in S.C. No. 302 of 2013 on the file of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, wherein, the appellant/accused was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act 1992, (T.N. Act No. 59 of 1992) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. The case of prosecution briefly is as follows:-

(i) P.W.1 Duraipandi/defacto complainant is the owner of car bearing registration No. T.N. 58 x 8887 and residing at Madurai Town Puttuthope main road at Kattunaickan Colony and the appellant/accused is also residing in the same area and there was a quarrel between some of the persons of their street and the accused due to distributing the Deepavali find, which was collected by the appellant/accused and the defacto complainant informed the same to the police Control Room and the police came there and brought the accused to the police station and hence, there was an enmity between the defacto complainant and accused. When P.W.1 parked his car near his residence, he found that the tyres of the car were damaged by somebody and hence, P.W.1 installed a CCTV camera in the upstairs of P.W.6, Sundarapandian's house to monitor his car, after obtaining permission from P.W.6.

(ii) On 26.11.2012, at about 6.00 hours, he went to clean the car and found that the rear side glass of the car was broken. When he enquired P.W.2 Rajendran and P.W.3 Krishnakumar, he came to know that the appellant/accused, due to previous enmity, with an intention to cause damage to the car, pelted stones on the glass of the car and caused damage to the tune of Rs. 6,400/- and P.W.1 and P.W.6 saw the CCTV footage and enquired the accused about the same and the accused replied that he would break the same like that and criminally intimidated him. Therefore, P.W.1 lodged a compalint Ex.P1 before P.W.7 Mr. Parthasarathi, Special Sub Inspector of Police, Traffic Police Station.

(iii) On 26.11.2012 at about 13.00 hours, P.W.7 received Ex.P1 complaint and registered a case in Cr. No. 1216 of 2012 for the offence under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 and 506(i) of I.P.C. and prepared Ex.P.4 and despatched the same to Court.

(iv) On 26.11.2012, P.W.9 Seetharaman, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation and he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2, Observation Mahazer and Ex.P.6, Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.6 Sundarapandian and Thisaipandian and recorded their statements and he seized the stone and broken glass pieces under seizure mahazer Ex.P3. Thereafter, he recorded the statement of P.W.8 Vimalkumar, who repaired the vehicle and obtained the receipt, Ex.P.5. He arrested the accused at 16.00 hours on the same day sent him for judicial custody and after completing his investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 and 506(i) of I.P.C.

3. The learned trial Judge after following the procedure framed necessary charges against the accused. Since the accused denied the same in to and pleaded not guilty, to prove the charges, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 7 and M.Os.1 and 2 were marked on the side of the prosecution. On completion of the examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr. P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the defence.

4. On considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai found the accused not guilty and acquitted him from the charge under Sectio