Burden of proof lies with prosecution, and inconsistency in witness testimonies can result in appeal allowing acquittal.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 07.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Crl.A.No.1261 of 2022 Kolanjirajan ... Appellant Vs.

State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mayiladuthurai Police Station, Mayiladuthurai – Post, Nagapattinam – District.

(Crime No.940 of 2014). ... Respondent PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to allow the criminal appeal by setting aside the judgment made in Sessions Case No.36 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai dated 28.09.2022.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Prabhakaran For Respondent : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Ms.Harshana.T JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant to set aside the impugned judgment, dated 28.09.2022 in Sessions Case No.36 of 2018 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mayiladuthurai (trial Court).

2.The conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the appellant are as follows:

● For offence under Section 294 (b) IPC , the appellant is convicted and ordered to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.

● For offence under Section 352 IPC , the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment.

● For offence under Section 506 (i) IPC , the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment.

● For offence under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, the appellant is convicted and sentenced to undergo four years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo one month Rigorous Imprisonment.

3.Gist of the case is that the defacto complainant (died) was running a Idly shop in a push cart near riverside which is opposite to Mayiladuthurai Palakkarai ATS Traders and the appellant was having a tea shop nearby. On 28.11.2014, at about 03.00 p.m., the appellant picked up a quarrel with the defacto complainant objecting for Idly shop and abused and attacking the defacto complainant on his face and back of his shoulder. Not stopping with that, the appellant damaged the defacto complainant's push cart worth Rs.4,000/- and threw it into the river. He also threatened the defacto complainant showing a wooden log to do away. This was witnessed by PW1 and her brother PW2 when they crossed Mayiladuthurai Palakkarai road in two wheeler. Thereafter, the defacto complainant went to the respondent Police Station, lodged a complaint (Ex.P4) at about 04.30 p.m. PW4, Special Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint (Ex.P4) and registered FIR (Ex.P3) in Crime No.940 of 2014 for offence under Sections 294 (b), 352 & 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. PW5, Inspector of Police took up investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, enquired the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, recorded their statements, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P1), Rough Sketch (Ex.P5), arrested the appellant at 06.00 p.m and produced for remand. On completion of investigation, PW5 filed charge sheet before the trial Court. During trial, on side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW5 examined and Exs.P1 to P5 marked. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no document marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted and the lower appellate Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant as stated above.

4.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant falsely implica