IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.12.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Criminal Appeal No.633 of 2017 K.V.Viswanathan .. Appellant -vs-

The State rep by its The Inspector of Police Avinashi Police Station Tiruppur District (Crime No.1621 of 2010) .. Respondent Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Appeal under Section 374(2)

of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22.09.2017 passed in S.C.No.249 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal District &

Sessions Judge at Tiruppur.

For Appellant :: Mr.K.Myilsamy For Respondent :: Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor JUDGMENT The appellant/A1 stands convicted for the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months, by the judgment dated 22.09.2017 passed in S.C.No.249 of 2011 by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge, Tiruppur. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this criminal appeal.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that protesting the action taken for removal of encroachments, on 14.05.2010, the appellant along with his friend, pelted stones on the two Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation buses bearing Registration Nos.TN-38-N-0818 and TN-33-N-2262, causing damage to the wind shields; that the damage caused to the first bus was Rs.2501/- and the damage caused to the other bus was Rs.4200/-. On the complaint given by P.W.1, the driver of the bus, P.W.8, the Inspector of Police registered the First Information Report for the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. P.W.9 examined P.W.4, the Branch Manager of the State Transport Corporation to assess the damage caused to the bus bearing Registration No.TN-33-N- 2262, similarly examined P.W.6 to assess the damage caused to the other bus bearing Registration No.TN-38-N-0818. After examination of all other witnesses, he laid the final report under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi on 13.05.2011.

3. The prosecution examined witnesses, P.W.1 to P.W.9, marked exhibits, P1 to P7 and produced M.O.1, broken glass & M.O.2, stone to prove their case.

4. The trial Court, after framing the charge under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act against the appellant and considering the oral and documentary evidence, found that the prosecution had proved the case and held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act and convicted and sentenced the appellant to imprisonment as stated above. Pending trial, A2 died, which is recorded in the judgment of the trial Court.

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that admittedly, the witnesses were not known to the appellant. No test identification parade was conducted during investigation. The names of the accused were also not known to the witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 & 2. They were examined seven years after the occurrence. Therefore, their version that they saw the appellant as a pillion-rider and the person who hurled stone on the wind shields, is unbelievable. The learned counsel further pointed out that the investigating officer has also not stated as to how he identified the appellant as the person who hurled the stone on the buses.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 is clear and they had identified the appellant during the examination in Court. The trial Court rightly believed the evidence of P.Ws.1 & 2 and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act. There is no infirmity in the said finding, prayed for dismis