IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.06.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN Crl.A.No.473 of 2023 Tamilselvan ... Appellant Vs.

The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Railway Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

(Crime No.05/2019) ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and set aside the order of conviction passed against the appellant/accused No.2 in S.C.No.81 of 2019 dated 31.03.2023 on the District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai and allow the Criminal Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Shivakumar For M/s.K.M.Vijayan Associates For Respondent : Mr.S.Rajakumar Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order dated 31.03.2023, passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai, in S.C.No.81 of 2019, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(4), 450, 332, 353, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Destruction and Loss) Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as “the TNPPDL Act”).

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.02.2019 at about

23.25 hours, when the victim was on duty at level crossing gate No.212 in between Sirkazhi and Kollidam railway station, the accused came there and quarreled with the victim and asked him to open the railway gate, when it was closed for the passing of Uzhavan Express. The victim informed the accused that the Uzhavan Express was about to come and as such, he refused to open the gate. However, the accused trespassed into the gate room and scolded the victim with filthy language and also assaulted him. They also threatened him with dire consequences. On the complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.5 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 450, 353, 332, 506(1) and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. After completions of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same was taken cognizance by the trial Court in S.C.No.81 of 2019.

3. In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. The prosecution also produced material objects in M.O.1 & M.O.2. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 332, 353, 450, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act and sentenced them as follows :-

The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there are two accused in which, the appellant is arrayed as second accused. The alleged occurrence had taken place on 01.02.2019 at about 11.25 P.M. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the Uzhavan Express was about to cross the gate and at that time, no occurrence was taken place as alleged by the victim and a false case has been foisted as against the appellant. According to the victim, the accused attacked him by using railway phone on his head due to which, it was completely damaged. But only through the