The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.

JUDGMENT

The accused in S.C.No.141 of 2015, on the file learned Principal Sessions Judge, the Court of Sessions, Tiruchirappalli District has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on him by the impugned judgment dated 13.12.2017:

2. The appellant herein was working as Professor in K.A.P.V. Medical College Hospital, Tiruchirapalli and the complainant, namely, Dr.Gomathi was working as Vice Principal in the same Medical College. On 31.07.2012, when the complainant was in the computer room, the appellant went into the room for which, the complainant questioned the appellant as to why he came there and asked him to leave. The appellant replied by saying whether it was her house and he would see afterwards. Pursuant to the previous motive between them, on 02.08.2012 at about 15.00 hours, the complainant parked her car bearing Registration No.TN-45-J-4935 Maruthi 800 Blue colour, in front of the co-operative society godown. At that time, the appellant threw stones over the front windscreen and both side window glass. Therefore, the glasses were borken due to which there was damage to the tune of Rs,14,000/-. Hence a case was registered in Crime No.1003 of 2012 on the file of the respondent police for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 3(i) of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damages and Loss) Act, 1992. After investigation, the investigating officer filed a final . report before the Sessions Court, Nagercoil The same was taken on file in S.C.No.141 of 2014.

3. After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to him under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellant, framed charges under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and the same was read over and explained to him and on being questioned, the accused/appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and two material objects were marked as M.O.1 and M.O.2.

5.The learned Trial Judge after completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against him in the prosecution evidence and the appellant denied as false. The learned trial judge, after considering the same, convicted the appellant as stated above.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 , is not made out against the appellant for the reason that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant caused damages. According to the prosecution, P.W. 1 and P.W.2 were examined by the police officer at that time, and they deposed that the appellant caused damages to the vehicle. But, during their cross-examination, they deposed that they did not give the statement as recorded by the police officers; the same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel further submitted that the presence of P.W.2 on the date of occurrence has to be established by marking the documents. But no such document was marked. The same was admitted by the prosecution witnesses, and the same was not properly considered by the learned trial Judge. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no evidence available to convict the appellant under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 , that the app