JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 r/w. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence dated 16.12.2016, passed in Crl.A.No.18 of 2014, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, confirming the conviction and sentence dated 28.02.20214, passed in S.T.C.No.216 of 2013, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur.)

1. Aggrieved over the concurrent findings dated 16.12.2016, made in Crl.A.No.18 of 2014, on the file of the learned I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, who confirmed the conviction and sentence, dated 28.02.2014, passed in S.T.C.No.216 of 2013, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, the revision petitioner, who is the sole accused, preferred this Criminal Revision praying to set aside the conviction and sentence awarded by the Courts below.

2. The accused in S.T.C.No.216 of 2013 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Court, Melur, is the revision petitioner herein. She stood charged for the offence punishable under Sections 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. After full-fledged trial, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, came to the conclusion that the revision petitioner is found guilty under Section 427 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. In respect of the offence under Section 506(i) I.P.C., she was acquitted from the charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in Crl.A.No.18 of 2014, wherein, by judgment, dated 16.12.2016, the findings arrived at by the trial Court were confirmed and ultimately, the appeal has been dismissed.

3. In the said circumstances, to check the correctness of those judgments, the revision petitioner is before this Court with this Criminal Revision.

4. The history of the case projected by the prosecution is that on 27.12.2012 when P.W.1/de-facto complainant went to attend coolie work, around 01.00 p.m., he received a message from P.W.3 – Araammal, who is his sister, as the accused herein demolished his house. Immediately, P.W.1 returned to his house and on enquiry, his father P.W.2 – Muniyandi informed that the accused even after the request made by him, damaged the house. In the meantime, the Village people secured the accused along with J.C.B., which is used to demolish the house. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint under Ex.P.1 before P.W.9.

4.1. P.W.9 - Looyees Vincent, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Melur Police Station, on 27.12.2012 around 09.00 p.m., while he was on duty, received the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.924 of 2012 for the offence punishable under Sections 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. The printed F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P.6. On the next day around 08.00 a.m., he visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of the witnesses, he prepared an Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch under Exs.P.3 and P.7 respectively. In the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered the damaged tiles under Ex.P.5 - Recovery Mahazar. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 31.12.2012 around 04.00 p.m., near Vaira Vilas Hotel, he recovered the JCB vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-59-AZ-6963, which was used for demolishing the house of P.W.1. Further, he recovered the Photographs and C.D., which was taken in the occurrence place, from P.W.1. Ultimately, he came to the conclusion that the accused had committed an offence and liable to be convicted under Sections 427 and 506(i) I.P.C. He filed final report accordingly.

5. From the above materials, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Melur, examined the accused in terms of Section 251 Cr.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. Hence, in order to prove their case, on the side of the prosecution, 9 witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.9 and 7 documents were m