High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Sundarrajan v. State - Crl. R.C. No.2 of 2005  RD-TN 2233 (9 July 2007)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09/07/2007
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN
Crl. R.C. No.2 of 2005
Sundarrajan ... Petitioner Vs
rep. by the Inspector of Police
Kullanchavadi Police Station
Cuddalore District. ... Respondent Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 and 401 Cr.P.C, against the order, dated 16.12.2004 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in C.A.No.24 of 2004 confirming the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore in S.C.No.252 of 2003, dated 16.03.2004 and praying to set aside the same. For petitioner : Mrs.Geetha Lingeswaran (Amicus Curiae) For respondent : Mr.S.Saravanan, Govt. Advocate (Crl.side) O R D E R
This Criminal Revision has been preferred against the judgment, dated 16.12.2004, made in C.A.No.24 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, confirming the order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, dated 16.03.2004 in S.C.No.252 of 2003.
2. As per the prosecution case, on 18.04.2003, at about 12.30 p.m, while P.W.1, Shanmugavel was driving the bus, bearing Registration No.TN 32/N-0404 from Kurinjipadi to Cuddalore near T.Palayam bus stop, the revision petitioner / accused entered into the bus and caused damage to the front and back side glass wind screens with M.O.1, uruttu kattai and thereby caused damage to the public property worth Rs.1,907/-. In support of the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 to 9 were examined, Exs.P.1 to P.8 were marked, apart from marking M.Os.1 and 2.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that on the particular date, there was an agitation by the political parties P.M.K and Viduthalai Siruthaigal, due to which, there was clash between the agitating people and that somebody had caused damage to the public property, but the police registered the case against the revision petitioner, under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the prosecution has not established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel would contend that except P.W.1, the driver, P.W.5, the conductor of the bus, other alleged eye witnesses did not support the prosecution case. But, according to the learned Government Advocate, as found by the court below, P.W.1 and P.W.5 have given cogent and corroborative evidence against the revision petitioner / accused and the identity of the petitioner / accused is not in dispute.
4. As per Section 134 of the Indian Evidence Act, no particular number of witnesses is required for the purpose of proving any fact in a case. The Court has to consider the evidentiary value of such witnesses. Here in this case, there is no dispute with regard to the identity of the accused.
5. As contended by the learned Government Advocate (crl.side), the case was registered against the single accused and the driver and conductor are competent witnesses to speak about the occurrence that had taken place on 18.04.2003. As per the prosecution case, on the complaint given by P.W.1, on occurrence, the case was registered by P.W.8, Sub-Inspector, attached to Kullanchavadi Police Station on the same day under Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984 and that there was no delay in registering the case and sending the FIR to Magistrate.
6. The complaint given by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P.1. The requisition letter given for assessing the damages caused to the public property was marked as Ex.P.2. Immediately, on the same day, P.W.9, the Inspector, attached to Kullanchavadi Police Station inspected the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.6 in the presence of witnesses and also prepared rough sketch, Ex.P.7 and also recovered the material objects, broken glass pieces under mahazar, Ex.P.8. P.W.6, Automobile Engineer, at the request of the Inspector, inspected the bus, that was subjected to damage on 18.04.2003 and found that the damage was valued at Rs.1,907/-.
7. In the criminal revision, unless there is manifest error of law or perverse finding, leading to miscarriage of justice, this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the court below. Based on the evidence, the trial court has held that the guilt against the revision petitioner has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the facts and circumstances, I am of the view that there is no perverse finding recorded by the court below.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner further contended that the revision petitioner is a poor agricultural coolie and that he got married and having wife and children and he is the bread winner of the family and that he has already undergone 32 days imprisonment. The learned Government Advocate (crl.side) has not disputed the genuineness of the representation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner had undergone 32 days imprisonment.
9. Under Section 3 (2) (e) of Prevention of Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, minimum sentence has been stipulated that the term shall not be less than 6 months, but the same can be less than 6 months for the reasons to be recorded by the court. Here in this case, it is not in dispute that the revision petitioner had undergone 32 days imprisonment and there is no bad antecedence against him, except this case. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is the bread winner of the family, having wife and children, as stated by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.
10. Considering the facts and circumstances, I find it reasonable to confirm the conviction and to meet the ends of justice to modify the sentence to the period already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, apart from the earlier fine paid by him. The fine amount shall be deposited before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, he shall undergo the sentence, as per the judgment rendered by the courts below.
11. With the above modification, this Criminal Revision is disposed of.
12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner appointed through High Court Legal Aid Committee has sincerely conducted the case and therefore, I hold that she is entitled to get a remuneration of Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred) only from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Aid Committee. tsvn
1. The Principal Sessions Judge,
2. The Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.