JUDGMENT

The first accused in S.C.No.103 of 2018 has filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the Judgment dated 04.09.2019 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri convicting him for the offense under Section 353 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months; convicting him for the offense under Section 379 of IPC, read with Section 21 (1) (iv) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 20.07.2017 at about 8.30 a.m., in the morning within the limits of Krishnagiri Taluk, Police Station and Krishnagiri to Hosur, National Highway Road, the Sub-Inspector of Police, one Ganesan; A Head Constable, one Madhaiyan and another Head constable one Sekar have involved in vehicle checking. At that time, a Mini Lorry 1109, bearing Registration No.TN.04 – A.E. 0380, came from Salem to Bangalore. When the said inspection parties signalled to stop the vehicle, though the vehicle slowed down, suddenly the first accused, who has told the other accused A2/driver of the vehicle that they are coming to catch us, even as he was saying so, the driver of the vehicle took off the Lorry and speeded off. Therefore, the inspection parties informed the same to the next check post by wireless message. As per the message, in the next check post, the Lorry was seized along with two units of sand. Hence, a case in Crime No.477 of 2017 was registered against two accused, for the above said offenses.

3.During the trial, the accused denied the charges and stood trial.

The prosecution examined the Sub-Inspector of Police, K.Ganesan, as P.W.1; both Head Constables Madhaiyan and Sekar as P.W.2 & P.W.3; One Purusothaman, Police Constable as P.W.4; One, Karthik, the Observation Mahazar witness as P.W.5; P.W.6/Thavamani, is the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, who caught hold of the vehicle at the check post; P.W.7/Vijay, who was a witness of the Observation Mahazar; One Assistant Engineer of PWD, who valued the minerals as P.W.8; The Investigation Officer, as P.W.9.

4.On behalf of the defence, no witness was examined or documents produced. Considering the evidence on record, by the Judgment under appeal, the Trial Court, while acquitting both the accused for the offenses under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, convicted the accused for the offense under Section 353 of IPC, and Section 379 of IPC, r/w Section 21 (1)(iv) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and imposed the sentence as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the same, the present Criminal Appeal is laid before this Court.

5.Heard Mr. S. Gajapathi Krishnan, learned counsel for the Appellant and Mr. S. Vintoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondent.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that even though the charge mentioned that only P.W.1 along with the two other Head Constables were conducting the vehicle check, in this case, the Investigation Officer, in his chief-examination has admitted that he was also conducting the vehicle check and therefore, the entire investigation conducted by him, cannot be taken into account and the case of the prosecution is unbelievable. He would further submit that the first accused is the appellant before this Court not even the driver of the vehicle and the Trial Court having disbelieved that he is abetting the second accused to move the Lorry to escape from the inspection party, therefore, he cannot be convicted for the other offenses. The learned counsel also submit that in this case, except for the Police witnesses, there are no other independent witnesses examined in this case.

7.Per contra the l