JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the Judgment of Conviction and Sentence, dated 22.04.2019 made in S.C.No.119 of 2018, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.

2. According to the appellant, the respondent police registered a case in Crime No.51 of 2018 against him for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294 (B) of IPC and Section 3 (1) of TNPPDL Act. On completion of the investigation, the respondent police, filed a final report before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.119 of 2018. After framing of charges and on completion of trial, the accused/appellant found guilty under Section 341 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergone one week simple imprisonment; and also for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, sentenced him to undergone one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. The accused/appellant was acquitted from the charge under Sections 294(b) of IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused is before this Court.

3. In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the trial Court, on the side of the prosecution as many as 6 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and also marked Exs.P1 to P9, besides, material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2 were exhibited on its side. On completion of the evidence, on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C and incriminating circumstances found out in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, but, the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. On the side of the defence, no witnesses were examined and no documents were marked.

4. The Court below, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments, as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the genuineness of the complaint itself has not been proved by the prosecution, which is doubtful and no independent eyewitness was examined. P.W.1 is the defacto complainant/driver and P.W.2 is the conductor, both are interested witnesses. The appellant came along with his wife in a two wheeler [M.O.2], and at that time, P.W.1, has driven the bus in a rash and negligent manner and due to which, the appellant sustained injury, and in order to escape from the clutches of law, P.W.1, the driver of the bus has filed a false case against the appellant.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the prosecution has not explained the injury sustained by the appellant. It is settled proposition of law, if the accused is injured at the time of the occurrence, it is for the prosecution to prove that as to how the accused has sustained the injury, in this case, the prosecution has not stated anything about, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Further, during cross examination P.W.1 and P.W.2 have admitted that there are about 10 to 20 passengers were boarded in the bus, at the time of occurrence, however, none of the passengers were examined in this case as prosecution witness, in order to prove the genuineness of the complaint and the manner in which, the appellant had broken the side mirror of the bus and further, it is also adduced by them after the occurrence, there was a gathering, but no one was examined. It is further submitted that the damaged bus was not subjected to inspection by the Motor Vehicle Inspector in order to ascertain the damage and to speak about the nature of damage. Therefore, the trial Court failed to appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and erroneously held that the appellant has c