IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-02-2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN K.Kothandapani Appellant/Accused Vs The State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by its Inspector of Police, Roshanai Police Station, Tindivanam, Villupuram District.

...Respondent/Complainant PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the order of conviction dated 31.03.2023 passed in S.C.No.125 of 2020 on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tindivanam, in convicting the appellant (i) under Section 294(b), 332 of IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act, 1992 sentencing to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as fine for the offence 294(b) and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 2 weeks (ii) under Section 332 IPC and sentencing to undergo imprisonment for a period of 6 months and pay a fine Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months (iii) under Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act sentencing to undergo imprisonment for a period 1 year and fine Rs.16,600/- and in default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 1 month.

For Appellant: M/s. R.Veeramani For Respondent: Mr.S.Raja Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal challenges the Judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed in S.C.No.125 of 2020 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, convicting and sentencing the appellant/accused as follows:

2.(a) The case of the prosecution is that on 17.01.2017, the appellant/accused was travelling in a Government bus bearing Registration No.TN32 N 3378; that the appellant had purchased the ticket for travel from Tindivanam to Deevanur; that instead of alighting at Deevanur, he had asked the conductor of the bus to stop at the place called Vizhukkam; that thereafter, since the conductor refused, he picked up a quarrel and after he alighted from the bus, he attacked the conductor with a stone and when the driver of the bus intervened, the appellant threw stone on him; and that since the driver moved away, the stone had damaged the wind shield of the bus and thus committed the aforesaid offences.

(b). On the complaint given by PW1, the conductor of the bus, an FIR was registered by PW8 for the offence under Sections 332 and 294(b) of the IPC and Section 3(i) of Tamilnadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and the FIR was marked as Ex.P6. PW8 conducted the initial investigation and handed over the investigation to PW10. PW10 after examining the witnesses and obtaining the certificate of damage, filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tindivanam, against the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b), 332 of the IPC and 3(i) of the Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.

(c) On the appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, committed to the Court of Sessions i.e., Principal Sessions Court, Villupuram and was made over to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, for trial, which was taken on file as S.C.No.125 of 2020. The trial Court framed charges against the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 332 of the IPC and Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act, 1992, and when questioned, the accused pleaded 'not guilty'.

(d) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.10 and marked 10 exhibits as Exs.P1 to Ex.P10 besides two material objects as M.O.1 and M.O.2. When the accused was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The accused neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

(e) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Hence, the accused has preferred the instant appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence. 3. Mr.R.Veeramani, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused su