Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 88972
MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.V.VISWANATHAN, M/36 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE REP.BY ITS – Respondent
CRL A 633 2017
In cases involving identification of the accused, the evidence of witnesses must be reliable and sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Factors such as the witnesses' familiarity with the accused, the conduct of a test identification parade, and the timeliness of the witnesses' examination are relevant in assessing the reliability of their testimony.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL LAW - DAMAGE TO PROPERTY - ACQUITTAL - IDENTIFICATION OF ACCUSED - UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE - ABSENCE OF TEST IDENTIFICATION PARADE - DELAY IN EXAMINATION OF WITNESSES - INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH GUILT
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for damaging two Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation buses by pelting stones on them during a protest. The prosecution relied on the testimony of the bus crew and passengers, who claimed to have identified the appellant as the person who threw the stones. However, the appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the witnesses were not known to him, no test identification parade was conducted, and the witnesses were examined seven years after the occurrence.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable and insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The witnesses had not provided any identifying features of the accused in their initial statements, and the delay in their examination raised doubts about the accuracy of their identification. Additionally, the prosecution failed to establish that the vehicle involved in the occurrence belonged to the appellant.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the witnesses was reliable and sufficient to identify the appellant as the person who damaged the buses. 2. Whether the delay in the examination of the witnesses affected the reliability of their testimony.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of the witnesses was unreliable and insufficient to establish the appellant's guilt. The witnesses were not known to the appellant, no test identification parade was conducted, and they were examined seven years after the occurrence. The court also noted that the prosecution failed to establish that the vehicle involved in the occurrence belonged to the appellant.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment of conviction and acquitted the appellant.
Crl.A.No.633 of 2017
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
Page No.1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.633 of 2017
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
Page No.2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.633 of 2017
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
Page No.3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.633 of 2017
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
