CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved On : 20.12.2024 Pronounced On : 15.05.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN CRL.A(MD).Nos.560 & 562 of 2018 1.Chellappa @ Karikadai Chellappa @ Mansoor 2.Jahir Hussain ... Appellant/Accused No.2&3 (In Crl.A(MD)No.560 of 2018) Pillappan ... Appellant/Accused No.1 (In Crl.A(MD)No.562 of 2018) Vs. The State rep by, The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station, Thanjavur District. (Crime No.323 of 2006) ... Respondent/Complainant ( In both Appeals ) Common Prayer: Criminal Appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.C.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Jude, (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, and set aside the judgment dated 06.12.2018 and acquit the appellants from the charges levelled against them. 1/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 For Appellant : Mr.C.Suresh Kannan for A2 & A3 (In Crl.A(MD)No.560 of 2018) : Mr.J.John for A1 (In Crl.A(MD)No.562 of 2018) For Respondent : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for R1 ( In both Appeals ) : Mr.E.Mareeskumar for defacto complainant JUDGMENT Accused A1, A2 & A3 in S.C.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the S.C.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Jude, (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, have filed these appeals challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed against them by impugned judgment dated 06.12.2018: Rank of the Accused Conviction under Section Sentence of Imprisonment/ fine imposed A2, A3 and A1 294(b) of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each. 506(ii) of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each. 3(1)of TNPPDL Act. Rigorous Imprisonment for two years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. 2/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 2. Since these criminal appeals are arising out of the same Crime No. 323 of 2006, these appeals are taken up for hearing together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. For better appreciation of this appeal rank of the accused mentioned in S.C.No.11 of 2013 is followed here under. 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- 3.1. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are brothers. A3 and P.W.1 and P.W.2 are close relatives. There is civil dispute between the family of A3 and the family of P.W.1 & P.W.2. A1 is brother-in-law of A3. Due to the above dispute on 28.11.2006, at about 05.00 p.m, A3 is said to have come to the house of P.W.1 in inebriated condition and abused P.W.1 & P.W.2 and their mother in filthy language and also criminally intimidated them. At that time, father of A3 came there and insisted A3 to come along with him by dragging the hands of A3. In that process, A3 sustained injuries. Thereafter, on 29.11.2006, at 01.30 a.m, A2, A3 & A1 again went to the house of P.W.1 with aruval and wooden logs and questioned P.W.1 and his family members about the injuries sustained by the second appellant/A3. Further, they caused damage to the grill gate and doom light worth about Rs.1,900/-. Therefore, P.W.1 lodged a complaint with the respondent 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 police. The respondent police registered a case in Crime No.323 of 2006 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. 3.2. Thereafter, The Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation and filed the final report before the learned II Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.22 of 2007. 3.3. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned II Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam, found that the offence under TNPPDL Act, filed against the appellant is triable only by the Sessions Court and committed the case under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., to the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, Thereafter, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.11 of 2013. Then, the learned Judge framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. 4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 3.4. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and exhibited 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and marked 5 material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.5. Thereafter, the appellants were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after disclosing the incriminating evidence against them and they denied the same as false and they specifically stated that their presence at the scene of occurrence is not proved. Prior to the occurrence on 29.11.2006 at 01.30 a.m, P.W.2 attacked A3 and caused bleeding injuries and hence, he went to the respondent police and lodged a complaint and the respondent police gave a medical memo and he was admitted in the hospital around 10.30 p.m and FIR was registered in Crime No.322 of 2006 i.e., earlier to the crime number of the present case. He was not present at the scene of occurrence as he was already admitted in the hospital. Hence, false case was registered against them by making false allegation. Thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on their side. 3.5.After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellants, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment, dated 06.12.2018 and found the appellants guilty, 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 convicted and sentenced them as stated above. 4. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeals. 5. Thiru.C.Suresh Kannan, learned counsel for the appellants 1 & 2 in Crl.A(MD)No.560 of 2018/Accused No.2 & 3 and Thiru.J.John, learned counsel for the third appellant Crl.A(MD)No.562 of 2018/A1 jointly made the following submissions:- 5.1.The case of the prosecution as per the charge is that on 29.11.2006, at 01.30 p.m, the appellants assembled in front of the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and caused damaged to the grill gate and doom lights in the portico of the house of P.W.1. Further, they abused P.W.1 and his family members in filthy language and criminally intimidated them. Even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the earlier occurrence took place at 05.00 p.m on 28.11.2006. At that time, according to P.W.1, A3 namely, Jahir Hussain himself caused injuries to him by hitting himself in the gate of P.W.1's house. The said version is false for the reason that according A3, he was attacked by P.W.1 and went to police station and a case was registered against P.W.1 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and other IPC 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 offences in Crime No.322 of 2006 and he was admitted in the hospital on 28.11.2006 at 10.30 p.m and took treatment as inpatient. In those circumstances, the presence of A3 is not at all probable and the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, 3 who have deposed about the presence of P.W.3 is nothing but false. Hence, he seeks acquittal. 5.2. In view of above event, unexplained delay of 21 hours in lodging a complaint is fatal to the prosecution. The delay in lodging complaint and delay of sending the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., to Court is fatal to the prosecution. The explanation offered by the witness P.W.1 that since all the accused were present at the scene of occurrence even after the incident and due to fear he was not able to give complaint is false in view of the evidence of eyewitness P.W.3 who has deposed that the accused ran away from the place immediately. There is also manipulation in the FIR by inserting the name of the accused and hence, there is doubt in the prosecution case. 5.3. To prove the damages and to punish the accused under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, no record was produced. According to the Investigating Officer, he has not collected the pieces of broken glass and valuation certificate also was not produced to prove any damage to the grill gate and lights. In view of the above circumstances, conviction and 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 sentence imposed on the appellants for the offence under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act is not legally maintainable. 5.4.According to evidence of P.W.1, all the accused came in a car and caused damages to the properties by scolding and criminally intimidated P.W.1 and his family members. As per the evidence of Investigating Officer, he never recovered the Aruval which was allegedly used by the third appellant/A1, who caused damages to the doom light in the house of P.W.1 and he never seized the car. In the said circumstances, non-seizure of car and aruval is fatal to the prosecution. 5.5. The learned trial Judge failed to see number of material discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 relating to the occurrence and without properly considering the same, erroneously convicted the accused. 5.6. It is unfortunate that the investigating officer has stated that the earlier case registered against P.W.1 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and other IPC in Crime No.322 of 2006 was not known to him and hence his evidence is not reliable. 5.7.when the sub inspector of police was not available to speak the recovery, hostility of the recovery witness is fatal to prosecution. 5.8. The presence of P.W.3 and the other witness namely, Jeganathan 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 in the scene of occurrence is doubtful. P.W.3 deposed that A1 gave a complaint against him with the allegation that he set fire to his house and he is a planted witness. 5.9. There was strong motive between the appellants' family and family of P.W.1 and P.W.2. Already there was a civil dispute relating to the properties of grand father of P.W.1, P.W.2 and A3 and the same ended in favour of A3. Hence P.W.2 and other persons assaulted A3 and caused bleeding injuries to him. Hence, A3 went to the respondent police and he was taken to the hospital. Therefore, due to the motive, false case has been registered against the appellants. In the said case in Crime No. 322 of 2006 , P.W.1 and other accused admitted the offence of assault and he was convicted and he also paid fine. In the said circumstances, the specific case of the appellants/A2, A3 & A1 that the present case was fabricated against them as a counter blast in order to escape from the legitimate prosecution is probable 5.10. The learned trial Judge failed to consider the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which supported the evidence elicited to the cross examination. 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) on going through the judgment and records made the following submission:- 6.1. There were no material discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 relating to the substratum of the prosecution case namely, the accused caused damage to the property and criminally intimidated P.W. 1 and P.W.2 and scolded them in the public place. P.W.3 was staying at the house of P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with other person namely, Jeganathan, who was the watch man of the said house were there. But, there was no evidence to prove the case pending against P.W.3 and hence P.W.3's evidence was correctly relied by the learned trail Judge. He cogently deposed about the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence and causing damage to the properties. In all aspects, the prosecution clearly proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 6.2. Non recovery of glass pieces and the valuation certificate is not a material to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3. They have specifically stated that the accused caused damage to the property of P.W.1 namely, grill gate and bulb worth about Rs.1,900/-. 6.3. The learned trial Judge correctly appreciated the entire evidence and believed the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and rightly convicted the appellants for the charged offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 3(1) 10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 of TNPPDL Act. Even though, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were subjected to cross examination, nothing was elicited to disbelieve their evidence. Therefore, he seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge. 6.4. A1 has number of previous cases and hence, he seeks to confirm the sentence without any reduction. 6.5. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant (P.W.1) impleaded himself as a party to the proceedings and filed a detailed written submission and also reiterated the submission of the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Judge. 7. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records and the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge. 8.Whether the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellants is sustainable or not? 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 9.Discussion on motive: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 363 2014 12 SCC 670 It goes without saying that enmity is a double-edged weapon which cuts both ways. It may constitute a motive for the commission of the crime and at the same time it may also provide a motive for false implication. Just as there is a possibility of murders having been committed because of motive due to enmity, there is also a possibility of false implication of innocent people to settle past scores. That is why it is said that motive is a double-edged weapon. 9.1.With the above guiding principles, this Court considers the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant whether false complaint was made on the basis of the existing motive. 9.2.From the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the answer furnished by the accused during the proceedings under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., it is clear that both P.W.1 and A3's grandfather had immovable property and there was a civil dispute relating to the property of the said grandfather between the family of P.W.1, P.W.2 and the family of A3 and in the said dispute, the case ended in favour of A3 and against the family of P.W.1 and P.W.2. A1 being brother-in-law of A3 has supported the claim of A3. Therefore, there was a long standing dispute and motive. The said motive, provoked P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 to implicate the appellants in the present 12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 case, which had been amply proved through various circumstances. The specific explanation of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., is as follows: A1 answered as follows: gjpy;: cjtp Ma;thsh; gd;dPh; nry;tj;jpw;FK; vdf;Fk; Kd; tpNuhjk; ,Ue;jJ. mth;kPJ cah;ePjpkd;wj;jpy; hpl; Nghl;L Jiw hPjpahf eltbf;if vLf;f cj;juT Nghlg;gl;lJ. mth; ,we;Jtpl;lhh;. ,.j.r.gphpT 307 tof;fpy; mth; vjphp. Fw;w vz;.322/06 vd;gJ vd; kr;rhd; nfhLj;j Gfhh; mjd; gpwF kUj;Jtkidapy; ,Ue;j NghJ vd; kPJ ,e;j tof;F Nghlg;gl;lJ. Nfs;tp: ,t;tof;F gw;wp ePh; VNjDk; njhptpj;Jf;nfhs;s Ntz;Lkh? gjpy;: ,J ngha;tof;F. vq;fSf;Fk; Mrpj;nfsrpf;Fk; nrhj;J gpur;rid ,Ug;gjhy; gopthq;f ,e;j tof;F ngha;ahf Nghlg;gl;Ls;sJ. Fw;w vz;.322/2006 vd;w tof;if Mrpf;Fk; nfsrpf;Fk; xg;Gf;nfhz;L mguhjk; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; nrYj;jptpl;lhh;fs;. ,J ngha;tof;F. Answer given by A3 Nfs;tp: ,t;tof;F gw;wp ePh; VNjDk; njhptpj;Jf; nfhs;s Ntz;Lkh? gjpy;: gpy;yg;gDk;> nry;yg;ghTk; vdf;F gof;fk; 13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 fpilahJ ,th;fs; ,Uthpd; khkdhh; [khy; Kfk;kJ. mth;jhd; vdf;F gof;fk;. mth;fSf;F nrhj;J gpur;rpid ,Ue;jJ. rptpy; Nf]; ele;jjhy; rpy cjtpfis ehd; [khy; Kfk;kJtpw;F mioj;J Nghftu nra;Njd;. Vd;id nfsrpf; vd;gth; [khy; Kfk;kJit mioj;J Nghff; $lhJ vd thh;d; gz;zpdhh;. ehd; cq;fs; FLk;gg; gpur;rpidapy; ehd; vJTk; nra;atpy;iy. ehd; el;ghf ,Ug;gjhy; mioj;J Ngha; tUfpNwd; vd;W nrhd;Ndd;. gpur;rpid rk;ge;jkhf cNrd; vd;gtiu kUj;Jtkidapy; Nrh;j;jJ ehd; jhd;. mj;Jld; Kbe;Jtpl;lJ. gpy;yg;gd; filf;Fg;Ngha; tpl;L ntspapy; te;jTld; cd; ngaUk; ,jpy; ,Uf;F vd;W gpy;yg;gd; khkdhh; [khy; Kfk;kJ Fw;w gj;jphpf;ifia vd;dplk; fhz;gpj;jhh;. mJ FIR vd;W epidf;fpNwd;. ehd; cjtp Ma;thsiug; ghh;j;Njd;. Mth;fs; nfhLj;j Gfhiu mf;nrg;l; gz;zpf; nfhz;ljhf nrhd;dhh;fs;. mjd;gpwFjhd; vdf;F [hkPd; Nghl;L ehd; [hkPdpy; te;Njd;. cjtp Ma;thsh; Nfhh;l;by; jfty; nfhLf;Fk;NghJ khw;wp tpLNthk; vd;W nrhd;dhh;. ,J ngha; tof;F. gpy;yg;gd; khkdhUf;F cjtp gz;zpNdd; vd;gjhy; vd;id ,e;j tof;fpy; Nrh;j;Js;shh;fs;. 14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 9.3. On 28.11.2006, at 05.00 pm., P.W.2 attacked him and caused bleeding injuries. Therefore, he lodged a complaint before the respondent police officer and the same was registered in Crime No.322 of 2006 and medical memo was also given. On the basis of medical memo, he was admitted in the Government hospital as inpatient at 10.15 hours on 28.11.2006 P.W.2 & other accused in Crime No.322 of 2006 pleaded guilty and paid fine. That being the situation, P.W.1 gave the distorted version about the injuries. According to him, A3 himself came to the house of P.W. 1 and damaged the gate with wooden log and scolded the family members of P.W.1 and hence, A3's father came and led away A3 and in the said course, A3 himself dashed against the gate of the P.W.1's house and suffered bleeding injuries. The said explanation is false in view of the conviction judgment in Crime No.322 of 2006 and therefore, the case of the appellant that due to the motive and in order to escape from the above legitimate prosecution in Crime No.322 of 2006, a false case was registered with the help of one deceased police officer/Paneerselvam is probable. Hence, the prosecution case is shrouded with suspicion. Therefore, this Court extends the benefit of doubt to the appellants. 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 10.Discussion about the presence of A3 in the scene of occurrence: According to P.W.1 and the prosecution case, as narrated above, after the occurrence at about 05.00 pm., on 28.11.2006, A1, A2, A3 came in a car “around 01.30 am., on 29.11.2006” and assembled with aruval and wooden log( A1 with aruval, A2 and A3 with wooden log) caused damages to the gate of the P.W.1's house and also bulb worth of Rs.1,900/- and the same was witnessed by P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3. As per the statement of A3 during the proceeding under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the record of case in crime No.322 of 2006, he was admitted in the hospital at 10.15 pm., on 28.11.2006 as inpatient for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the alleged earlier occurrence that took place at about 05.00 pm. In the said circumstances, evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 about the presence of A3 in the scene of occurrence and their specific overtact attributed against A3 is false. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that their evidence lacks credibility and their evidence is unworthy and deserves to be rejected. Hence, this Court holds that the presence of A3 in the scene of occurrence was not proved by the prosecution. 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 11.Discussion on the delay in registering the case: According to P.W.1, P.W.2, the occurrence took place in the early morning 01.30 am on 29.11.2006. P.W.1 gave the complaint only at 10.00 pm., on 29.11.2006. P.W.1 gave explanation that there was a fear in his mind as the accused were still waiting in the occurrence place. The said evidence of P.W.1 is quite contrary to the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3 stated that after the occurrence all the accused ran away from the place of the occurrence. The contrary evidence of both witnesses as follows: P.W.1 P.W.3 29k; Njjp ,uT 10 kzpf;F fhty; epiyaj;jpy; ehd; Ngha; Gfhh; nfhLj;Njd;. mt;thW ,uT Gfhh; nfhLj;jjw;F fhuzk; vjphpfs; 3 NgUk; ,d;Dk; gf;fj;jpy; jhd; ,Uf;fpwhh;fs;. Nghftpy;iy vd;w gaj;jpy; clNd Gfhh; nfhLf;f fhty;epiyak; Nghftpy;iy. fhty; epiyak; nrd;W Gfhiu ehd; jhd; vd; ifg;gl vOjpf;nfhLj;Njd;. vd; Kd; fhl;lg;gLk; Gfhh; ehd; ifnaOj;Jg;Nghl;Lf; nfhLj;jJ jhd;. me;j Gfhh; jhd; m.j.rh.M1. NghyPrhh; vd;id tprhhpj;jhh;fs;. ehd; ele;jtw;iw nrhd;Ndd;. NghyPrhh; rk;gt ,lj;ijg; ghh;j;jhh;fs;. rk;gtj;ij n[auhkd;> n[fehjd;> vdJ jk;gp KfkJ jTgpf; kw;Wk; vdJ mk;kh MfpNahh;fs; Neubahf ghh;j;jhh;fs;. 29.11.2006k; Njjp ehd; fhiy 8 kzpf;F kapyhLJiw NghNdd;. Ngha;tpl;L ,uT 9.30 kzpf;F te;Njd;. rz;il ele;j gpwF ehd; ,uT 1.30 kzpf;F Nky; vd; tPl;bw;F Ngha;tpl;Nld;. mij NghyPrpy; nrhy;ypAs;Nsd;. rz;il ele;jgpwF vjphpfs; 3 NgUk; Nkw;F jpiria Nehf;fp Xbg;Ngha;tpl;lhh; fs; vd;why; Ngha;tpl;lhh;fs;. 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 11.1. Apart from that, P.W.1 deposed that at 08.00 am., on 29.11.2006, he went to Maiyladudurai and returned home at 09.30 pm., P.W.2 also affirmed his statement that P.W.1 went to college. Therefore, explanation furnished by P.W.2 that there was fear in his mind is not acceptable one. The case of A3 that P.W.1 and P.W.2 assaulted him and caused bleeding injuries to him and hence, he went to the police station and FIR was registered against P.W.2 on 28.11.2006 at 10.00 pm., and he was admitted in the hospital and in order to avoid the prosecution, present complaint was preferred with the delay when the distance between the police station and the occurrence place is within a reachable time of 10 minutes as admitted by P.W.2. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of this case, the delay in lodging the complaint is fatal to the prosecution. The same is further strengthened by other circumstances that the deceased police officer Paneerselvam had strong motive against A1 in this case and the explanation of A1 that the false case was registered by the said officer with the connivance of P.W.1 and P.W.2 after the registration of the case in crime No.322 of 2006 is probable one and hence, this Court accepts the case of A1 to A3, that the above case was registered with delay without any truth in the allegation for two reasons, namely to escape from the crime No.322 of 2006 and to pressurize the appellant to settle the civil dispute. 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 12.Discussion on the conviction judgment in Crime No.322 of 2006: There is no dispute about the injuries on the head of A3. According to P.W.1, he himself caused the said injury by hitting against the gate of P.W.1's house. But, as per A3, P.W.2 and other persons caused the injuries and hence, the criminal case was registered against P.W.2 and other persons in Crime No.322 of 2006 and the same was investigated by the same police officers and final report was filed before the learned II Additional District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Kumbakonam. The same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.227 of 2007 with specific allegation that P.W.2 and other persons caused injuries to A3 on 28.11.2006 at about 05.00 pm., and he was admitted in the hospital. P.W.2 and other accused pleaded guilty and were convicted and they paid the fine also. Therefore, the said judgment is vital one to decide whether A3 was present at the time of the occurrence to assess the credibility and trustworthiness of P.W.1 to P.W.3 about the occurrence allegedly happened on 29.11.2006 at about 01.30 am. Hence, this Court on the request made by the appellant and also to verify the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., that P.W.2 and others were convicted called for the records of the said judgment. Under Section 56 of the Indian Evidence Act, Court has power to take judicial notice of 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 the criminal Court judgment in exceptional circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar reported in , (2023) 13 SCC 563 with the following guidelines: 78. The law, in respect of taking judicial notice of any fact, may be summarised in the following manner: 78.1. The doctrine of judicial notice, as provided under Section 56, is an exception to general rules of evidence applicable for proving any fact by adducing evidence in the court of law. 78.2. According to Section 56 of the Evidence Act, judicial notice of any such fact can be taken by the court, which is well known to everyone, which is in the common knowledge of everyone, which is authoritatively attested, which is so apparent on the face of the record, etc. 78.3. Except in the rarest of rare cases, judicial notice of any fact is generally not taken in criminal matters in the normal course of proceeding, and the case is decided on the basis of oral, material and documentary evidence adduced by the parties to find out the guilt or innocence. 79. As discussed above, the judicial notice of any fact is generally not taken in criminal matters, but the present matter stands on an altogether different footing in view of what has been noted hereinbefore. It falls in the category of the rarest of rare cases and hence, it requires a different approach. This Court, in its considered opinion, finds that 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 the judgment [Harendra Rai v. State of Bihar, 2007 SCC OnLine Pat 103 : (2007) 2 PLJR 244] in the habeas corpus petition was passed on the basis of notes of the Inspecting Judge of the High Court, the report of Additional Director General of Police, statement of CW 1 Smt Lalmuni Devi recorded in court before the Magistrate under the directions of the High Court, her affidavit filed before the High Court, her statement/disclosure in Bhojpuri before one of the Judges hearing the habeas corpus petition and several other authoritative materials after giving the opportunity of hearing to the parties, including the accused of the crime in question. 82. Another Latin maxim, which means that a judicial decision must be accepted as correct, may be usefully extracted here, “res judicata pro veritate accipitur”. 12.1.When A3 sustained injuries and he was admitted in the hospital and the present case was registered with specific overtact that he caused damages to the property of P.W.1 and P.W.2's house by assembling with A1 and A2 and also a quash petition was filed before this Court on the ground that he was not present, and there was no investigation on this aspect and the investigating officer feigned ignorance about the crime No,.322 of 2006 which is previous crime number to the present case namely, Cr.No. 323 of 2006, and this Court in the interest of justice and also to avoid 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 miscarriage of justice to the appellants, places reliance on the said judgment. This Court also takes note of the answer of P.W.1 and P.W.2 about the registration of the case put by way of suggestion. 12.2.On going through the records of Crime No.322 of 2006, it is clear that P.W.1's version that A3 sustained injuries by hitting himself on the gate of his house at 28.11.2006 about 05.00 pm., is false and the case of the prosecution in this case that on 29.11.2006, at about 01.30 am., the appellants assembled with weapons and caused damages to the property of P.W.1 is stage managed one in order to escape from the above prosecution in crime No.322 of 2006. Hence, this Court to render justice relied the records of Crime No.322 of 2006 and the same was legally permissible as per the provision of Sections 56 and 58 of the Indian Evidence Act. Once, A3 was not present in the scene of the occurrence and the inseparable and indivisible evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 against all the accused that they caused damages to the appellant's house is also not believable one. It is settled principle that When the evidence of prosecution is intrinsically inseparable, benefit of doubt is to be given to all the accused. In this case, as discussed above, A3's presence is doubtful and hence the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 is not trustworthy. The said benefit also is extended to A1 and A2 in view of the peculiar circumstances that evidence is inseparable 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 and intrinsically connected with the overt acts of remaining accused. 13.Discussion on the presence of P.W.3 P.W.3 admitted that A1 gave a case against him with allegation that he set fire to the property of A1. He also stated that before the occurrence, he never stayed in the house of P.W.1.and only on the date of the occurrence he stayed in the house of P.W.1 along with watch man of A1's house. His evidence is contrary to the evidence of P.W.1 about the factum of the presence of the accused in the place of the occurrence after the occurrence was over. His evidence shows that he was a chance witness which is not acceptable one. In view of the above motive with A1 he was a planted witness. The same is further strengthened from the evidence about the fact that he stated that he collected all the broken pieces of the bulb in the house by sweeping the same. But the investigating officer admitted that he has not collected any broken piece and no record was produced to prove the damage of the bulb. Therefore, on this score also his evidence is not corroborated by the remaining circumstances. Therefore, the presence of P.W.3 in the scene of the occurrence is doubtful. 14.Material lapse on the part of the investigating agency: 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 It is the specific case of the prosecution witnesses that A1 to A3 came in a car and A1 assaulted with aruval and caused damages to the property of P.W.1 and hence,the punishment was to be given under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. To prove the offence, neither the broken properties were produced nor any records were collected to prove the damages caused to the house and investigating officer also admitted the same. Not even damage certificate was produced. Both car and aruval were not recovered. There is no investigation relating to the material fact that the occurrence happened on 28.11.2006 at 05.00 pm. Whereas there was an assault on A3 and the said case ended in conviction which is a different occurrence from the present occurrence. The above said lapse clearly shows that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case against the appellant. In view of the above special circumstances, the principle that lapse on the part of the investigating officer is not a ground to acquit the accused is not applicable. This Court already held that P.W.1 to P.W.3 are not trustworthy witnesses. 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 15.Other material circumstances to disbelieve the prosecution case: There was also no proper explanation relating to the manipulation of A2's name in the FIR. There are also material discrepancies between the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3 about the occurrence time and the same was not properly explained by the investigating agency. According to the prosecution the words used are thlh Njtbah kfNd Fr;rpf;fhhp kfNd cd;id nfhy;yhky; tplkhl;Nld;. This version was not found out during the course of investigation. There was a delay of FIR reaching the learned Judicial Magistrate Court. Apart from that the material documents reached the Court after considerable delay. The said police officer Paneer Selvam, recovered the material object from the arrested accused, namely, the appellants, in the presence of P.W.4. P.W.4 did not support the prosecution case and hence, the case that the appellants caused damages to the property is also doubtful. The above circumstances also create doubt over the prosecution case and therefore, the prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 16. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) submitted that the third appellant/A1 has previous cases and hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. This Court is unable to accept the said submission. The instances of previous antecedents is not a ground to convict the appellant without any evidence to connect the accused in this case. In view of the above circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the submission of the defacto complainant and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) that the appellants were rightly convicted for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) and 3(1) of TNPPDL Act. Hence, this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Judge against the appellants/A2, A3 & A1. 17. Accordingly, the Criminal appeals are allowed on the following terms :- i) The judgment passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Jude, (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District, in S.C.No.11 of 2013, dated 06.12.2018, is hereby set aside. ii) The appellants are acquitted from all the charges in S.C.No.11 of 2013, passed vide judgment on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Jude, (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District dated 06.12.2018. 26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 iii) Fine amount paid by the appellant shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. iv) Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. 15.05.2025 NCC :Yes / No Index :Yes / No Internet :Yes / No dss/sbn To 1. The Additional District Sessions Jude, (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. 2. The Inspector of Police, Thiruvidaimaruthur Police Station, Thanjavur District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section(Records), Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A(MD).No.560 & 562 of 2018 K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN ,J. dss/sbn CRL.A(MD).Nos.560 & 562 of 2018 15.05.2025 28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis