MOHAMMED RAFIQ Vs. MADHAN AND SUBRAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the judgment dated 29.03.2016 rendered in S.C. No. 252 of 2015, the VI Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai had acquitted A1 and A2/R1 and R2 herein of the charges framed under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act and Section 436 of IPC. Challenging the acquittal, PW2, the so-called victim has filed this appeal under proviso to Section 372 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and his brother Mohamed Haja Nizamudeen were functioning as Trustees of the property, in which they had put up a shed, which was set fire by A1 and A2, thereby caused loss to the extent of Rs. 40,000/-. Apart from that, it is also stated that A1 and A2 set fire to the shed put up by one Natarajan also.

(3.) The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offences against the accused persons, has relied upon the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, Exhibits 1 to 5 and M.Os.1 and 2. Out of six witnesses, P.Ws.4 to 6 are the official witnesses. P.W.6 (Sub-Inspector of Police) has received the complaint (Ex.P1) preferred by P.W.1/Mohamed Haja Nizamudeen and has registered a case against A1 and A2 under Section 436 IPC and Section 3(1) of PPDL Act under Ex.P3/FIR. In the presence of P.W.3/Arumugam, he prepared Ex.P1/Observation Mahazar and Ex.P4/Sketch and he recovered M.O.1/Ashes. He also recovered the Motor Cycle (M.O.2) under Form 91/Ex.P5. Accepting the investigation done, P.W.6/Inspector of Police has filed the final report against the accused persons.