Appeal
This appeal is preferred by the sole accused who was found guilty by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, was sentenced to undergo four years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.4,500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The fine amount was ordered to be paid as compensation to the Managing Director of TNSTC, whose property damaged by the accused.
Accused arguments
9. The learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would state that though the witnesses deposed that the area was poorly lighted, but uniformly P.W.1 to P.W.4 have identified the accused. More particularly, the accused was caught red handed soon after the occurrence. P.W.5 and P.W.6, who are the witnesses to the Mahazar and Rough Sketch, have spoken about the preparation of Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4 between 8 to 8.30 p.m. While the Mahazar and Rough Sketch were prepared in the scene of crime between 8 to 8.30 p.m., it is not impossible to identify the accused at 6.30 pm., who had tried to flee from the scene of crime after throwing stone on the wind screen.
State side arguments
10. Regarding the alteration found in the trip sheet viz., Ex.P.2, the learned Government Pleader submitted that correction and over writing in the trip sheet will not mean that the prosecution has manipulated the said document. The case of the prosecution stands even without the trip sheet and therefore there is no necessity to alter the trip sheet. Whatever the correction made in the course of maintaining the trip sheet not intentional. Further he submits that the accused has been caught red handed immediately after causing damage to the bus of the wind screen.
Accused caught red handed
12. The deposition of the Motor Vehicle Inspector and P.W.8 the Assistant Engineer attached to Edappadi Transport Corporation Workshop, prove the fact that the wind screen of the transport bus bearing registration No.TN30N0724 got damaged and the value of the damage was fixed as Rs.4,500/- as per Ex.P.6. Regarding the cause for damage, P.W.1 to P.W.4 in universe have deposed that while the bus was passing through P.N.T.Mill in Velur to Tiruchengode near Goundanpalayam Village, the appellant threw stone and tried to run away from the place. The contact of the accused soon after the occurrence was bad and he was caught red handed soon after the occurrence by the passengers in the bus and by the public. No doubt, no public has come forward to give evidence. That doesn’t mean that the occurrence never had occurred or the accused was the cause for the said damage.
14. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Investigating Officer has failed to take photographs of the vehicle to confirm the damage caused. May be the Investigating Officer should have taken the photographs of the damaged vehicle but the omission to take photographs is not fatal to the case of the prosecution, since the vehicle has been inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector as well as the Engineer of the State Transport Corporation and value of the damage was assessed as Rs.4,500/- and no suggestion has been put to reverse contra to that evidence. For the said reasons this Court finds that the findings of the trial Court are correct and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act.
Sentence modified
16. Accordingly, the period of sentence of one year is modified as three months with fine of Rs.4,500/- which shall be payable as compensation to the State Transport Corporation, in respect of the offence under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act. The period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
Party
Loganathan S/o.Muthusamy vs The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Nallur Police Station, Vellangoundampatty Circle, Namakkal District – Crl.A. No. 540 of 2020 – 31.03.2023.
