Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 69566
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Murali Shankar, J
Mohamed Riyaskhan – Appellant
Versus
The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Kenikkarai Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. – Respondent
CRL.A(MD).No.1101 of 2023
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Althaf Sheriff for M/s Ajmal Associates
For the Respondents:Mr.K.Gnanasekaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
The court found significant contradictions in eyewitness accounts, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, resulting in an acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 323, 353 - Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 - Criminal Appeal against conviction - The trial court found the appellant guilty of assault and public property damage - The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness accounts which revealed contradictions and improbabilities, resulting in doubts about the prosecution's narrative - Evidence showed no substantial injuries inflicted or damages proven on the government's two-wheeler could justify the charges - Appeal allowed due to lack of evidence. (Paras 19-25)
(B) Conviction - Reassessment of evidence - The appellate court needs to ascertain if the findings made by the trial court are substantiated by credible evidence - Findings of the trial judge, in light of evidence corroboration and credibility of witnesses, were found erroneous, leading to a not guilty verdict. (Paras 9-16)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. incident details and charges against accused. (Para 3 , 4 , 7) |
| 2. trial court's judgment and evidence inconsistencies. (Para 9 , 19) |
| 3. defense arguments questioning credibility of the prosecution’s eyewitnesses. (Para 12 , 14) |
| 4. final judgment and acquittal based on insufficient evidence. (Para 25) |
JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made in S.C.No.12 of 2021, dated 21.11.2023, on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.
2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties will hereinafter be referred as per their status/ranking in the trial Court.
3. The prosecution's case is that on 10.01.2019, the defacto complainant, a Sub-Inspector, was on patrol duty with a government two-wheeler (TN-65- G-0820) and Constable Sathiyendran. Near Rameshwaram road, vehicles carrying passengers heading to watch an Ajith movie were passing by, cheering and shouting with their heads and arms out. The complainant advised them to not put their hands out. The accused, Mohammed Riyaskhan, driving Tavera No.TN-19-E-2206, ignored warnings, abused the officer in filthy language, and threatened to kill him by dashing his vehicle. He then drove into the complainant and the two-wheeler, causing injuries to the complainant's left elbow, left shoulder, right shoulder, and right ankle, and damaging the two-wheeler. The accused was handed over to the police station, leading to charges under Sections 294(b), 307, 332, 353 IPC, and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.
4. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Ramanathapuram took the charge sheet on file in P.R.C.No.68 of 2020 and furnished the copies of the records under Section 207 Cr.P.C., on free of costs. The learned Judicial Magistrate finding that the offences under Section 307 I.P.C., and 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions and after the compliance under Sections 208 and 209 Cr.P.C., had committed the case to the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.12 of 2021.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, being satisfied there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed the charges under Sections 294(b), 307, 353 I.P.C., and under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992, or in alternative under Section 427 I.P.c., against the accused and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, he denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.
6. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 10 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.10 and marked one material objects as P.M.O.1.
7. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
(a) P.W.1 – Thiru.Nandhakumar – defacto complainant was working as Sub Inspector of Police in Kenikkarai Police Station and P.W.2 – Sathiyendran was a police constable attached to the said station on the date of occurrence. On 10.01.2019, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went to patrol duty near the Collector office bus stop, at about 01.45p.m, A film by name Viswasam got released on the previous date in the nearby Ramesh Theatre. So many persons came in car and vans from Rameshwaram to see the film. All of them by precluding their heads and hands through side door proceeded by shouting and cheering. P.W.1 stopped those vehicles and advised them not to preclude their heads or hands outside the vehicle. At that time, P.W.1 had parked his two wheeler Super Splendor bearing Registration No.TN-65-G-0820 belonging to the Government which was given for P.W.1's official purpose. One Tavera car bearing Registration No.TN-19-E-2206 has come in a similar fashion with shouting and cheering. P.W.1 stopped that vehicle and advised the inmates of the said vehicle. But at that time, the accu
