JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. to set-aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court for Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore made in S.C.No.89 of 2016, dated 11.11.2021 and to acquit the appellants.)

1. Challenging the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, Coimbatore in S.C.No.89 of 2016, dated 11.09.2021, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed.

2. The fact of the case is that on 07.09.2015, at about 2.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant, who is the driver of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, had driven the bus bearing registration No. TN 45 N 3505, from Singanallur towards Trichy, near Sowdambikai Textiles, the appellants/accused along with one juvenile Shiyam were quarreled with each other in the middle of the road. When the defacto complainant and the conductor of the bus, namely Chandrasekaran, questioned the same, the accused abused them with filthy language and A1 thrown a brandi bottle on the rear side of the bus and the remaining accused also thrown stones on the rear side of the bus and thereby caused damage to the bus to the tune of Rs.6000/-. In pursuance of complaint, a case in Crime No.716 of 2015 was registered under Sections 204(b) of IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act.

3. Based on the materials, the Trial Court framed charges as against the accused under Sections 294(b) & 427 of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act and the accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case of prosecution, as many as 10 witnesses were examined, 9 documents were marked, besides 3 material objects were marked.

4. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same as false. However they neither choose to examine any witness nor mark any documents.

5. Having considered all the materials, the Trial Court acquitted the accused from the offences under Section 294(b) IPC and convicted the accused for the offence under Section 427 IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ each, in default, undergo3 months R.I. Though the petitioner was convicted under Section 427 of IPC, no separate punishment was ordered for the offence under Section 427 of IPC as sentence was passed for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused are before this Court with this appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants/accused contended that the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court are contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. All the prosecution witnesses not denied the fact that in the place of occurrence, there is CCTV camera available. They can very well take photograph of the damaged bus and also secure the CCTV footage in the scene of occurrence. However, the prosecution failed to take photograph of the damaged bus and also failed to secure the CCTV footage to prove the occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. Further, to connect the accused with the crime, the police examined 10 witnesses before the Trial Court. Among them, Sasikumar(P.W.1), Chandrasekaran(P.W.2) are driver and conductor of the damaged bus. Karthik (P.W.3) and Azhaguraja(P.W.4) are passengers in the bus. Their evidences are not credible due to inconsistence between the witnesses. Other evidences are not enough to connect the accused with the crime. In the absence of producing the photograph of damaged bus and the non placement of CCTV Camera footage from the place of occurrence created doubt about the involvement of the accused in the crime. The Trial Court, failed to appreciate the fact and without sufficient evidence found the accused guilty, which is unsustainable and reiterated the ot