Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J
Pappal – Appellant
Versus
State by., The Inspector of Police – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. criminal appeal against acquittal for property damage and assault. (Para 1) |
| 2. prosecution's account of events. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 3. prosecution's evidence and witness testimonies were deemed credible. (Para 4) |
| 4. prosecution's evidence supports allegations. (Para 5 , 10) |
| 5. defense challenges validity of prosecution's timeline. (Para 6 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. court's observations on the credibility of immediate reporting. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 7. conviction for damages affirmed. (Para 13) |
| 8. court orders sentencing procedure. (Para 14) |
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 comp
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 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 prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and insufficient evidence leads to acquittal.
The TNPPDL Act does not apply to damage caused in private disputes and private properties.
The evidence of an injured witness holds special status and should not be dismissed lightly, especially when corroborated by medical evidence.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of clear and unambiguous charges to provide the accused with a precise notice of the accusations, and the need for sufficient and consistent evidence to support....
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
