Advocates:
['M/S B RAMAMOORTHY', '', 'V SUNDARRAJU', 'PUBLIC PROSECUTOR']

Crl.A.No.43 of 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.11.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

Crl.A.No.43 of 2020

1. Bhuvaneswaran

2. Manokaran

3. Punniyamurthi

4. SathishKumar (Deceased)

5. Arun @ Arunkumar

6. Rameshkumar

7. Balakrishnan

8. Kannan

... Appellants

Vs

Crime No.10 of 2008

State represented by

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Valangaiman Police Station.

...Respondent

PRAYER : This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of

Cr.P.C, to allow the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence passed

against the appellants on 12.12.2019 on the file of the Principal District and

Sessions Court, Thiruvarur and made in sessions case number 143 of 2016 and

acquit the appellants by allowing the appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.V.Sundarraju

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

Page 1 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.43 of 2020

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

Page 2 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.43 of 2020

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

Page 3 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.43 of 2020

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.