Conviction For Damaging Public Property Cannot Stand Without Seizure, Identification Or Proof Of Damage: Calcutta High Court
Observing that a criminal conviction under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act cannot rest solely on oral testimony when the prosecution fails to seize, produce or otherwise prove the existence of the allegedly damaged property, the Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Port Blair has set aside the conviction of a man accused of vandalising equipment at a government hospital...
Observing that a criminal conviction under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act cannot rest solely on oral testimony when the prosecution fails to seize, produce or otherwise prove the existence of the allegedly damaged property, the Calcutta High Court Circuit Bench at Port Blair has set aside the conviction of a man accused of vandalising equipment at a government hospital and acquitted him of all charges.
Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held that when the investigating agency has the means to produce the “best evidence” — such as seizure of damaged articles, photographs or expert opinion — but fails to do so, the benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
The revisionist, T.R. Rakesh Kumar, had challenged concurrent findings of the trial court and the appellate court which convicted him under Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act for allegedly damaging hospital equipment. Though he was released after admonition under the Probation of Offenders Act, he pursued the revision contending that the conviction itself would seriously prejudice his future employment prospects.
According to the prosecution, following the death of a patient at a Primary Health Centre, members of the patient's family created a ruckus and damaged medical equipment including a suction apparatus and oxygen regulator. However, the FIR was lodged against an “unknown person” and did not name the petitioner.
Before the High Court, the defence argued that the petitioner was arrested more than a year after the FIR, no test identification parade was conducted, no damaged property was seized or produced before the court, and no expert opinion was obtained to establish damage. It was also contended that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of “mischief” and actual damage to public property.
Examining the FIR and the evidence, the Court noted several inconsistencies. The complaint itself referred to multiple persons (“they”) damaging property, yet the FIR named only one unknown accused. Although witnesses later identified the petitioner by name, the Court found it unclear how they came to know his identity when there had been no prior identification procedure.
Significantly, the Court found that the prosecution had not seized the allegedly damaged apparatus, nor taken photographs of the damage, nor obtained any expert assessment. The explanation that the equipment could not be seized because it was in use at the hospital was rejected. The Court observed that such items could have been formally seized and returned on bond (zimmanama), or at least photographed and documented.
Emphasising the “best evidence rule,” the Court held that the fact of damage could have been proved through production of the articles, photographs or expert testimony. In the absence of such material evidence, the prosecution could not seek conviction merely on witness statements while ignoring these deficiencies.
Holding that the charge was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the Court set aside both the appellate and trial court judgments, allowed the revision and acquitted the petitioner. His bail bonds were discharged and he was directed to be released forthwith.
Case Title: T.R. Rakesh Kumar v. State
Case No: CRR/2/2026