Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Nirmal Kumar, J
Senthil Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Dharapuram Police Station, Dharapuram, Tiruppur – Respondent
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 Mek
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and damage to private property does not fall under public property laws.
The amendment Act 46 of 1994 enlarges the scope of TNPPDL Act, 1992 to include damages caused to private individuals by other private individuals, as interpreted and applied by the court.
The broad scope of the amendment Act 46 of 1994 includes damages caused to private individuals by other private individuals under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992.
The trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite substantial evidence, including witness testimonies, necessitating conviction based on the principle of proving charges beyond reasonable doubt....
The evidence of an injured witness holds special status and should not be dismissed lightly, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to an initial acquittal; however, the Appellate Court found conclusive evidence establishing guilt, wa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
