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.

JUDGMENT :

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 23.03.2022, passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur, in S.C.No.6 of 2018, thereby acquitted the respondents 2 to 11 offences under Sections 147 , 148, 452, 323 & 324 of IPC and Section 3 (1) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act (hereinafter referred to as “TNPPDL Act”.

2. The case of the prosecution was that the appellant and the respondents 2 to 11 belong to the same village. While being so, on 07.06.2016 at about 11 p.m., when the appellant had put a Kolam in front of her house, all the respondents 2 to 11 came there and completely destroyed it. When it was questioned by the appellant, on the next day viz., on 08.06.2016, all the respondents 2 to 11 came to her house at about 5.30 p.m., and trespassed into her house. One of the accused caused damage to the window and plastic bucket with iron rod and caused damage to the tune of Rs2,800/-. When the defacto complaint and others questioned the act of the respondents 2 to 11 herein, they attacked them by hands and using iron rod. The other accused also attacked three other relatives of the appellant. On hearing the noise, when the neighbors were arrived there, all the accused persons flew away from the scene.

3. On the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.321 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 324, 323, 452, 354 of IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act. After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.6 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 324, 323, 452, 354 of IPC and Section 3 of the TNPPDL Act, as against the respondents 2 to 11 and charged for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 323, 452 of IPC Section 3 (1) of the TNPPDL Act, as against the respondent 2 to 5 and 7 to 11 and charged for the offences under Sections 147 , 148, 324, 452 of IPC Section 3 (1) of the TNPPDL Act as against the sixth respondent.

4. On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12. The prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 & M.O.2. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the respondents not guilty and acquitted them. Aggrieved by the same, the victim/P.W.1 filed the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and other injured persons were examined as P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.10. They categorically deposed about the specific overtact of the respondents 2 to 11. The accident register of the injured persons were duly marked as Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.8. The doctor who treated the victims was examined as P.W.7. Therefore, the prosecution had categorically proved the charges as against the respondents 2 to 11 herein. In fact, the broken household articles were produced as material objects in M.O.1 and M.O.2. Even then, the trial Court without believing the version of the prosecution mechanically acquitted the respondents 2 to 11.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 11 submitted that there are contradictions between the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10. The medical evidence also did not support the case of the prosecution. The doctor who treated P.W.1 to P.W.3 and P.W.10 also faile