JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in Sessions Case No.143 of 2016 dated 12.12.2019, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur, thereby convicting the appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 for the offences punishable under Section 147 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2008, at about 05.30 p.m, when the victim was sitting in a culvert along with other friends, the first accused was passing through that place. At that juncture, one of the witnesses questioned A1 as to why did he teased his sister?; there was a wordy quarrel between them; thereafter, other accused also came there and had a quarrel. In the said incident, the accused pelted stones on the victim, due to which, he sustained an injury; the glass and door in the house of one of the witnesses also got damaged to the tune of Rs.450/-. Hence, the complaint.

3. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.10 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 336, 307 of IPC r/w Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act as against the accused. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance, in Sessions Case No.143 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Thiruvarur.

4. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and marked Exs.P1 to P8. The prosecution had also produced M.O.1 and M.O.2. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no document was marked. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court found the appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 guilty for the offences punishable under Section 147 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo four months rigorous imprisonment, each. The appellants 1 to 3 and 5 to 8 were also found guilty for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 and sentenced them to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, each and imposed fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment, each. Aggrieved by the same, this present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that even according to the case of the prosecution, the private property was damaged during the occurrence and it had not happen due to any riot or any other reason mentioned under the provisions under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and as such no charge is made out under the TNPPDL Act as against the appellants. The present complaint is a counter complaint. The first complaint was registered under Section SC/ST Act, as against the defacto complainant and others. However, the respondent without following the Police Standing Order 588A, filed a final report as against both the parties. Even thereafter, both the case were not tried by the same Court. In the other case, the complainant and others got acquitted. Whereas, the appellants were convicted in the counter complaint. Therefore, the conviction in the counter complaint cannot be sustained as against the appellants. According to the victim, there were fifty persons when he was attacked with stones. However, the victim sustained only one injury on his nose. If more than fifty persons attacked by stones, definitely he would have sustained more injuries. P.W.2 also deposed in his cross examination that during the quarrel, no one was injured on both sides.

6. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the prosecution categorically proved its case beyond any doubt and as such the Trial Court rightly found the appellants guilty for the offences under Section 147 of IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. P.W.2 deposed that when he along with his friends and parents were sitting in the culvert, A1 was crossing the culvert by his bicycle. P.W.2 questioned him about eve-teasing his sister. Therefore, there was a wordy quarrel between them. Thereafter, P.W.2 went to his house. Again, all the accused had gone to the hou