JUDGMENT :

PRAYER: Criminal Appeals filed against the judgment passed in S.C.No.12 of 2016 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, dated 06.11.2019.

Accused filed Crl.A.No.847 of 2019 against the conviction and sentence for the offence under Sections 420 and 465 IPC. Defacto complainant has filed criminal Appeal Nos.875 of 2019 and 114 of 2020 against the very same judgment being Crl.A.No.875 of 2019 is filed for enhancement of the sentence awarded under section 420 IPC and Crl.A.No.114 of 2020 filed against the acquittal for the offence under Sections 451 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992.

2. Since all the above criminal appeals arise out of the same judgment, the criminal appeals are heard together and disposed of by the common judgment.

3. For the sake of convenience, the ranking of the parties is mentioned herein as per the ranking of the trial court.

4. The respondent Police registered the case in Crime No.67 of 2012 for the offence under Sections 420, 448, 379 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992. After investigation, they laid charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate, Thiruthuraipoondi. After completing the formalities, the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No.47 of 2015. Since the offences were triable by the Court of Session, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, after completing the formalities, taken the case on file in S.C.No.12 of 2016. After completing the formalities, the Principal Sessions Judge found that prima facie case is made out against the accused, framed charges against him for the offences under Sections 465, 420, 451 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992.

5. After framing of charges, on the side of prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to 11, 27 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.27 and 4 Material Objects were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.4. After completing the evidence on the side of the prosecution witnesses, incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution side were put before the accused. He denied the same as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of defence, the accused was examined as D.W.1 and 3 documents were marked as Ex.D.1 to Ex.D.3.

6. After completing the trial and on hearing of arguments advanced on both sides and considering the materials placed before it, the trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 451 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. However, convicted the accused for the offence under Sections 420 and 465 IPC. For the offence under Section 420 IPC, the accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; for the offence under section 465 IPC, accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six weeks. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial court, the accused has preferred Crl.A.No.847 of 2019 and against the order of acquittal for the offence under Section 451 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992, defacto complainant has filed Criminal Appeal No.114 of 2020. Further the defacto complainant also filed Crl.A.No.875 of 2019 for enhancement of sentence for offence under section 420 IPC.

7. Mr.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl.A.No.847 of 2019 would submit that there is a delay in filing the complaint and also registering the FIR. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 16.11.2011. Complaint was given only on 17.11.2011 i.e., FIR was registered only on 11.02.2012. The said delay was not properly explained and the same vitiates the case of the prosecution. P.W.1 defacto complainant is not an eye witness and therefore, the conviction and sentence based on his evidence is legally not sustainable. P.W.6 is the owner o