The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and damage to private property does not fall under public property laws.

JUDGMENT :

The appellants/accused convicted by the Trial Court in S.C.No.72 of 2019 by judgment dated 01.09.2021 and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment each for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and to undergo four years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act [TNPDDL Act] r/w. 34 IPC . Against which, the present appeal is filed.

2. The prosecution case is that the respondent police received a complaint from the defacto complainant/P.W.1 stating that the defacto complainant is an Advocate of considerable age practising in Dharapuram, on 12.10.2018 at about 7.00 p.m., one Mekala Mythili, wife of Senthil Kumar/A1 along with her father came to his office and complained that her husband Senthil Kumar taken to liquor, constantly abusing and assaulting her, hence she needs divorce from him. As the said Senthil Kumar is an Advocate Clerk, the defacto complainant informed her that he will speak to her husband and try to sort out the issue. On the same day at about 12.40 a.m., during midnight the said Mekala Mythili called the defacto complainant and complained that her husband Senthil Kumar along with another Senthil Kumar in a drunken state, assaulting her. The defacto complainant informed her that he will speak to him on the next day. Following early hours on that day, both the appellants came to the defacto complainant’s home in Alto Car, abused him using filthy languages and later, A1 had thrown a brass lock on the defacto complainant’s Honda City Car damaging the wind shield, since the neighbours hearing the shout and noise came out of their houses, both appellants left the place in their Maruthi Alto car. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.12 registered FIR and placed before P.W.13/Investigating Officer, who visited the scene of occurrence, examined the neighbours and witnesses present near the scene of occurrence, namely, P.W.1 to P.W.5, recording their statements, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of P.W.7 and P.W.8, arrested the accused/A1 in presence of P.W.9 and P.W.10. On his confession, recovery made. P.W.11/Approved Assessor of Insurance Company gave a report for the damage caused on the defacto complainant’s car. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.13 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 marked, M.O.1 and M.O.2 produced on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and Ex.D1/photographs marked through P.W.1. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants as above.

3. The contention of the learned counsel of the appellants is that the first appellant is an Advocate Clerk attached to one Sekar, who was earlier Junior to P.W.2/wife of P.W.1. Since the first appellant used to refer lot of motor accident claim cases to the said Sekar who was flourishing in the practice, hence there was animosity against the first appellant. P.W.1 being a leading Criminal Lawyer threatened the first appellant not to support the said Sekar. He would submit that in this case, the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place on 13.10.2018 in the early hours but the complaint was lodged with a delay of 8½ hours. The Police Station is only few meters within walkable distance, P.W.1 being a Criminal Lawyer not informed the Police through phone or immediately went to the Police Station. He further submitted that in this case, the damage caused is to the wind shield of the defacto complainant’s car which was parked inside the house, is not a public property and no offence under TNPPDL Act gets attracted. The case originates and the motive projected against the appellants is that P.W.6/wife of first appellant had some difference of opinion with the first appellant and she approached the defacto complainant, complained about the first appellant and she took