Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 5197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 28.03.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN Crl.A.No.57 of 2019 Kumar ... Appellant/accused Vs.
State by Inspector of Police, Edaiyur Police Station, (Cr.No.132 of 2008) ...Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, in S.C.No.108 of 2010 dated 21.12.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sukumaran For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Government Advocate(crl.side)
J U D G M E N T
The present appeal has been filed by the appellant / accused against the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, in S.C.No.108 of
2010 dated 21.12.2018.
2. The appellant herein is the sole accused in the above referred case. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. After a full fledged trial, the learned District and Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Sections 452, 294(b), 326 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, convicted and sentenced as follows:
| Offence | Sentence |
| Under Section 452 of IPC | to undergo six months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment |
| Under Section 294(b) of IPC | to pay a fine of Rs.300/- in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment |
| Under Section 326 of IPC | to undergo one year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment |
| Section 3(1) of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act | to undergo eighteen months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment |
| The trial court also ordered the sentences to run concurrently |
3. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused is before this Court by way of filing the present criminal appeal.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
(i) P.W.2-Sumathi is the daughter in law of P.W.1-Surendran. The domestic servant working in the house of P.W.1 is P.W.3. On 08.08.2008 around 1.30 a.m., when at the time P.W.1 was in his residence along with P.W.2 and P.W.3, the accused-Kumar came there along with wooden log and abused the P.W.2 by using filthy language. When the same was questioned by P.W.1, the accused after pushing her down, stamped on her neck. Further, he criminally intimidated P.W.1 and later, he damaged the T.V., torch light and one car bearing registration No.TN 01 AB 7758 and caused damage to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. Later, around 3.00 p.m., P.W.1 brought the P.W.2 to the Best Hospital and admitted her as an in-patient.
(ii) P.W.8-Dr.Ravi attached to the said hospital, on 08.08.2008 around 7.50 p.m. examined the P.W.2 and found the following injuries:
(1) contusion over right shoulder size 3x4 cm (2) contusion over right upper back 4x4 cm He issued wound certificate under Ex.P6 as injury No.1 is grievous and the other injury sustained by P.W.2 is simple in nature.
(iii) In the meanwhile, P.W.10-Natarajan, the then Inspector of Police, on the same day around 15.30 hrs, received the complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in crime No.132 of 2008 under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 448, 506(ii) of IPC r/w 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. The copy of the F.I.R. is marked as Ex.P7. After registering the case, he visited the scene of occurrence and in the presence of P.W.7-Ravi, P.W.5- Annadurai, he prepared observation mahazar under Ex.P2. He drawn rough sketch and the same has been marked as Ex.P8.
(iv) In continuation of investigation, on the same day around 5.00 p.m., from the occurrence place, he recovered M.O.1 & M.O.2 under cover of mahazar. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 10.08.2008, he has produced the car alleged to be damaged in the alleged occurrence before the Motor Vehicles Inspector for issuing a certificate as regards to the value of the damage. Later since he was transferred, he handed over the case records to his successor Samarasam. The said Samarasam took the case for further investigation and after examining the Motor Vehicles Inspector, he came to the conclusion that the accused herein is liable to be convicted under Sections 452, 294(b), 325 and 506(ii) of IPC
