CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 28 / 08 / 2023

JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 28 / 02 / 2024

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

1.Ganesan

2.Raji @ Rajesh

3.Kannan

4.Kalaivannan ...Appellants /

Accused 1-4

Versus

The State Represented by

The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Office of the DSP

Gingee, Villupuram. ...Respondent /

Complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to call for the records and set aside the

judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge in Special Court

for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under the SC / ST (POA) Act, 1989, at

Villupuram in Special Sessions Case No.258 of 2015 dated November 17

th

,

2016.

1/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

For Appellants : Mr.R.Thirumoorthy

For Respondent : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan

Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is preferred by the appellants assailing the

judgment dated November 17

th

, 2016 passed by the 'learned Sessions Judge,

Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered under the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Villupuram'

(henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity) in Special Sessions Case

No.258 of 2015, in which, they were convicted and sentenced as follows:

2/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

Appellant's

Rank

Provision under

which convicted

Sentence

A1

3(1)(x) of SC/ST

(POA) Act 1989

Simple Imprisonment for ONE YEAR with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only), in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for THREE

MONTHS

323 (3 counts)

of IPC

Simple Imprisonment for THREE MONTHS for each count with a fine of Rs.1,000/-

(Rupees One Thousand Only) for each count, in default thereof, to under Simple

Imprisonment for 22 DAYS for each count

A2

3(1)(x) of SC/ST

(POA) Act 1989

Simple Imprisonment for ONE YEAR with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only), in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for THREE

MONTHS

323 (3 counts)

of IPC

Simple Imprisonment for THREE MONTHS for each count with a fine of Rs.1,000/-

(Rupees One Thousand Only) for each count, in default thereof, to under Simple

Imprisonment for 22 DAYS for each count

A3

3(1)(x) of SC/ST

(POA) Act 1989

Simple Imprisonment for ONE YEAR with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only), in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for THREE

MONTHS

323 (3 counts)

of IPC

Simple Imprisonment for THREE MONTHS for each count with a fine of Rs.1,000/-

(Rupees One Thousand Only) for each count, in default thereof, to under Simple

Imprisonment for 22 DAYS for each count

A4

3(1)(x) of SC/ST

(POA) Act 1989

Simple Imprisonment for ONE YEAR with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only), in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for THREE

MONTHS

323 (3 counts)

of IPC

Simple Imprisonment for THREE MONTHS for each count with a fine of Rs.1,000/-

(Rupees One Thousand Only) for each count, in default thereof, to under Simple

Imprisonment for 22 DAYS for each count

326 of IPCSimple Imprisonment for TWO YEARS with a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five

Thousand Only), in default thereof, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for SIX

MONTHS

The period of imprisonment already undergone by the accused, if any, was given set

off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The period of imprisonment was ordered to run

concurrently.

2.For the sake of convenience, henceforth the appellants will be

3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

individually referred to as 'A1, A2, A3 and A4' respectively and collectively

referred to as the 'accused'.

3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

3.1.Mariyappan (P.W.1) was running a Tailor Shop in the name

of 'New Sun Tailor' at Balaji Textile complex in Kadaiveethi, Anandhapuram.

On November 12

th

, 2012 at 22.00 hours, the accused verbally abused P.W.1 by

uttering the words 'XXX' ['XXX' masked for legal and ethical reasons].

Questioning Mariyappan (P.W.1) as to why he opened the Tailor Shop on the

eve of Deepavali. Further, A2 abused P.W.1 by using caste name and filthy

language and asked P.W.1 to flee away as they were going to consume liquor.

Further, the accused caught hold of Mariyappan's (P.W.1) shirt and dragged

him out of the tailoring shop and assaulted Mariyappan (P.W.1). Further, A1

struck the mouth of Subramanian (P.W.2) who was working in the tailoring

shop with stone. The A2 to A4 knocked Subramanian (P.W.2) down and

assaulted him by using hands and legs. When Mariyappan (P.W.1) intervened

to stop the accused, they assaulted Mariyappan (P.W.1) in the cheek. When

4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

Saravanan (P.W.3) came there and attempted to dissuade the accused, they

yelled at Saravanan (P.W.3) using the words 'XXX' ['XXX' masked for legal

and ethical reasons]. Murugan (P.W.4) tried to intervene to prevent the

incident, but A4 assaulted him, causing grievous injuries to his nose and head

with stone. Therefore, Mariyappan (P.W.1) lodged a complaint (Ex-P.1)

before the Ananthapuram Police Station on November 16

th

, 2012.

3.2.On receipt of the complaint, P.W.10 B.Renukadevi, Sub-

Inspector of Police, Ananthapuram Police Station registered FIR (Ex-P.6)

under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code, 1860'

('IPC' for short) read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SC/ST (POA) Act' for

short) against A1 to A4.

3.3.The Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District, vide his

proceedings dated November 16

th

, 2012 (Ex-P.8) nominated

Mr.G.Paneerselvam, Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.12) as the

Investigating Officer. The Investigation Officer inspected the place of

5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

occurrence on November 17

th

, 2012 in the presence of witnesses namely Velu

(P.W.9) and Raji (P.W.5) and prepared observation mahazar (Ex-P.2) and

rough sketch (Ex-P.9). After investigation, he recorded statements of

Mariyappan (P.W.1), Subramani (P.W.2), Saravanan (P.W.3), Murugan

(P.W.4), Velu (P.W.9) and Raji (P.W.5). On the same day viz., November 17

th

,

2016, at 10.00 a.m., upon receiving information that A1 and A2 were hiding

in the vicinity of Panamalaipettai Bus Stop, he went there and arrested A1 and

A2 and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate, Gingee. To find out the

community of the victims, he addressed a requisition letter to the Tahsildar,

Gingee. On November 18

th

, 2012, he recorded the statement of Renukadevi

(P.W.10). On December 28

th

, 2012, he recorded the statement of Doctor

Bhaskaran (P.W.11) who treated Murugan (P.W.4). On March 2

nd

, 2013 he

recorded the statement of Doctor Chandrasekar (P.W.7) who treated

Subramanian (P.W.2). On June 2

nd

, 2013, he recorded the statement of

Punniyakotti (P.W.6) Tahsildar, Gingee and obtained community certificate

(Ex-P.3) from him with respect to P.W.1 to P.W.4. Since he was transferred, he

handed over the case file to the office.

3.4.Muralidharan (P.W.13) the then Deputy Superintendent of

6/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

Police, Gingee, took on the case for further investigation. He examined

R.Ravikannan (P.W.8), Tahsildar of Vikravandi with respect to the community

of A1 to A4. After completion of the investigation, he filed charge sheet under

Sections 294(b), 323, 326 and 506(ii) of IPC read with 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and

3(2)(va) of SC / ST (POA) Ordinance 2014 against the accused on June 25

th

,

2014.

3.5.The learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee registered the case in

P.R.C.No.3 of 2015 and observing that the offence under Sections 3(1)(r),

3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Ordinance, 2014 are exclusively triable

by the designated Special Court under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, committed

the case to the Trial Court, after furnishing copies under Section 207 of 'The

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973' [henceforth ‘Cr.P.C.’ for the sake of

brevity] to the accused.

3.6.The Trial Court after perusing the records and hearing both

sides, framed charges against the accused as follows:

7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

Rank of the accused Charges framed

A1 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 323 of IPC (3 counts)

A2 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 323 of IPC (3 counts)

A3 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 323 of IPC (3 counts)

A4 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 323 (3 counts) and 326 of IPC

3.7.The charges were read over and explained to all the accused.

Since the accused pleaded not guilty, Trial was ordered.

3.8.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.13

(Witnesses) and marked Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.9 (Documents). The defence side

neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. No Material

Objects were marked by either side. The incriminating evidence against the

accused available on record were put forth in the form of questions to the

accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the accused denied the same as

false.

3.9.The Trial Court after hearing either side, concluded that the

charges against A1 to A4 are proved and convicted and sentenced as stated

supra in paragraph no.(1).

8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

3.10.Feeling aggrieved with the conviction recorded and the

sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the accused have preferred this Criminal

Appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

Arguments

4.The learned counsel for the accused argued that the accused

did not commit any offence as alleged; that the accused did not insult or

intimidate witnesses; that there are vital contradiction in the evidence of

P.W.1 and P.W.4; that the Trial Court has not considered and appreciated the

contradictory statement of prosecution witness. Further he submitted that the

FIR has been registered after four days from the date of alleged occurrence.

Further he submitted that there is a delay in sending FIR to Court. Further he

submitted that the prosecution has projected two different place of

occurrence. Further he submitted that P.W.3 and P.W.4 not belong to

Scheduled Caste; that except P.W.1 to P.W.4, no independent witness was

examined to prove the alleged charges. Further he submitted that Rule 7 of

SC/ST (POA) Rules 1995 is mandatory in nature and the said Rule has not

9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

been adhered to, the investigation for the alleged offence under Section

3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act is vitiated. Further he submitted that no material

object as alleged in the prosecution case has been seized / recorded by the

Investigating Officer. In sum and substance, his argument is that the accused

did not involve and commit any offence as alleged by the prosecution and the

prosecution case is doubtful; and that the Trial Court without considering the

evidence in proper perspective, recorded conviction and imposed punishment

which is to be set aside.

5.Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted

that P.W.1 to P.W.4 are injured witnesses and medical evidence corroborates

the injury sustained by them. Further he submitted that there is no necessity

for P.W.1 to make false complaint against the accused. The evidence of P.W.1

to P.W.4 is natural and believable. The Trial Court after considering the

evidence passed the judgment. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the appeal

and sustain the conviction and sentence of the Trial Court.

10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

6.This Court has heard either side and perused the case file. The

following points arise for consideration.

(i)Whether the charge under Section 323 (3

counts) is proved against the accused?

(ii)Whether the charge under Section 326 of IPC

is proved against A4?

(iii)Whether the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST (POA) Act are proved against the accused?

Discussion and Decision for Point Nos.(i) and (ii)

7.Mariyappan (P.W.1) in his evidence has deposed that on

November 12

th

, 2012, on the eve of Deepavali, he opened his Tailorshop and

engaged in his job; that at that time, all the accused were standing in front of

P.W.1's Tailoring shop; that P.W.1 asked the accused to move to some place as

his customer would come to his Tailor Shop; that the accused verbally abused

by calling P.W.1's caste name; that the accused assaulted P.W.1. He further

deposed that Subramanian (P.W.2) who was working in his shop tried to

11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

prevent the accused; that A1 struck the mouth of Subramanian (P.W.2); that

A2 assaulted Subramanian (P.W.2); that Saravanan (P.W.3) who is running

cycle shop opposite to P.W.1's shop came there and tried to dissuade the

accused; that the accused yelled at Saravanan (P.W.3) by using 'gwg;gaYf;F

ePa[k; rg;nghl;lh'; that Murugan (P.W.4) who is the brother of Saravanan

came there and tried to intervene, to prevent the incident but Kalaivanan (A4)

assaulted Murugan (P.W.4) and caused head injury; that someone phoned the

police and police came to the place of occurrence; that on seeing the police,

accused fled away from that place.

7.1.P.W.1 in his cross examination admitted that he lodged

complaint after four days from the date of occurrence; that Anandhapuram

Police Station situate 300 meter away from his Tailoring Shop; that Saravanan

(P.W.3) and Murugan (P.W.4) belong to Devankar Community which is non-

scheduled caste; that there is no previous enmity between him and accused

before the incident.

8.Subramanian (P.W.2) in his evidence has deposed that he is

12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

working in the Tailoring Shop of P.W.1; that he sustained injuries in the said

incident. He deposed in the line of P.W.1.

8.1.P.W.2 in his cross examination has deposed that except

Ganesan (A1) he did not know any accused before the said occurrence; that

the accused never visited P.W.1's Tailoring Shop and they did not acquaint

with P.W.1 and P.W.2; that there is no previous enmity between the accused

and them; that he was admitted to hospital as in-patient and took treatment for

two days.

9.Saravanan (P.W.3) who is also an injured witness deposed that

on November 12

th

, 2012, at 22.00 hours, he was in his house; that he owned a

shop adjacent to his house; that the accused were quarrelling with the P.W.1;

that he tried to prevent the offence; that at that time, the accused attacked him;

that on seeing the incident, his brother Murugan (P.W.4) came to the place of

occurrence and prevented the accused; that Kalaivannan (A4) attacked

Murugan's (P.W.4) face and mouth.

9.1.In his cross examination, P.W.3 deposed that his shop is

13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

situated opposite to P.W.1's shop and in between P.W.1's shop and his shop,

there is a road; that his house is situated 100 feet from the place of

occurrence.

10.Murugan (P.W.4) who is none other than the brother of P.W.3

deposed in the line of P.W.1 to P.W.3. He further deposed that when he

prevented the accused, Kannan (A3) and Kalaivannan (A4), he was assaulted

by A3 and A4 with stone on his head, mouth and nose; that due to the assault,

blood oozed from his mouth; that he went unconscious; and that he was

brought to hospital through 108 Ambulance.

10.1.In his cross examination, P.W.4 deposed that there is a road

in between P.W.1's shop and his house.

11.Doctor Chandrasekar (P.W.7) has deposed that on November

13

th

, 2012 at about 12.30 p.m., when he was on duty in the Government

Hospital, Gingee, Subramanian (P.W.2) came to hospital accompanying his

relative Mariyappan (P.W.1); that Subramanian (P.W.2) informed him that

14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

four known persons assaulted him on November 12

th

, 2012 at 08.30 p.m., with

hands. The Doctor (P.W.7) noted the following injuries on P.W.2 in the

Accident Register:

“1.Contusion 4 X 3 cm below right eye

2.Contusion 3X 3 cm – below right ear

3.Tooth ache”

11.1.Doctor Chandrasekar (P.W.7) further deposed that the said

injuries are simple in nature. To that effect, he issued Ex-P.4 Accident

Register. He further deposed that he referred Subramanian (P.W.2) for getting

opinion from Ophthalmologist and Dentist; that P.W.1 did not take treatment

and not produced any document regarding the said treatment; that since

Subramanian (P.W.2) did not produce any medical records, he has not given

any opinion about the nature of the injury.

12.The Investigating Officer has not explained whether

Subramanian (P.W.2) received treatment from Ophthalmologist and Dentist.

Evidence in this regard is totally absent. Hence, this Court is of the view that

15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

the injuries noted in Ex-P.4 is simple in nature.

13.Dr.Bhaskaran (P.W.11) deposed that on November 12

th

, 2012

at about 23.45 hours, when he was on duty at Emergency Ward at

Government Hospital, Mundiyampakkam, one Shanmugam took Murugan

(P.W.4) to hospital through 108 Ambulance; that Murugan informed him that

three known persons assaulted him with stone near his house at 22.45 hours.

He noted the following injuries on the body of Murugan:

“(i)Laceration on the forehead mid 4 X 1 X ½ cm

(ii)Laceration on the upper lip 2X ½ X ½ cm

13.1.P.W.11 further deposed that he admitted Murugan (P.W.4) in

the hospital as in-patient and Computed Tomography Scan (C.T. Scan) was

done; that his nasal bone got fractured; that P.W.11 opined that the injuries are

grievous in nature. In that effect, he issued Ex-P.7 Accident Register and final

opinion.

14.A conjoint reading of the evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and

16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

P.W.11 and Ex-P.4 clearly establishes that the accused persons assaulted and

caused simple injury to P.W.1 to P.W.3. Further, accused persons attacked

P.W.4 also. Hence, the act of the accused clearly attracts the offence

punishable under Section 323 of IPC. The Trial Court, after appreciating the

evidence and medical records, has rightly decided that the offence under

Section 323 of IPC has been made out and accordingly, imposed punishment

in para 20(ii) of its judgment. This Court does not find any illegality or

infirmity in the said finding. Hence, there is no warrant to interfere with the

said finding. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Trial Court's conviction

and sentence against accused under Section 323 of IPC (3 counts) is

sustained.

15.P.W.4 has deposed that A3 and A4 assaulted him and caused

grievous injury. But, charge under Section 326 has been framed against A4

alone. This Court has carefully perused P.W.4's evidence along with medical

evidence. Doctor (P.W.11) who gave treatment to P.W.4 has clearly deposed

that P.W.4 got grievous injury, to that effect, the Doctor (P.W.11) issued

Accident Register (Ex-P.7). A conjoint reading of evidence of P.W.4 and

17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

P.W.11 and Ex-P.7 clearly proves that A4 assaulted P.W.4 with stone and

thereby caused grievous injury. Hence, the act of A4 clearly attracts the

offence punishable under Section 326 of IPC. Therefore, the Trial Court after

appreciating oral and documentary evidence has rightly decided that offence

under Section 326 of IPC has been proved by the prosecution. Hence, there is

no warrant to interfere with the said finding. However, the Trial Court has

imposed two years of Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in

default thereof, six months of Simple Imprisonment for the said offence.

16.P.W.4 was admitted in the hospital on November 12

th

, 2012

and discharged on November 19

th

, 2012. In view of the nature of the injury

noted by the Doctor (P.W.11) in Ex-P.7 and the period of treatment underwent

by P.W.4 and also considering the age of the accused (Age 24/2016) this

Court is of the view that the sentence imposed by the Trial Court shall be

modified. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that imposing

punishment of six months Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/- in

default thereof to undergo one month of Simple Imprisonment would be

reasonable. To that extent, this Court interferes with the Trial Court's findings.

18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

Point Nos.(i) and (ii) are answered accordingly.

Discussion and Decision to Point No.(iii)

17.P.W.1 and P.W.2 belong to Scheduled Caste and P.W.3 and

P.W.4 belong to non-scheduled caste.

18.The prosecution has examined Mr.Punniyakotti, Tahsildar

(P.W.6). He deposed that P.W.1 and P.W.2 belong to Scheduled Caste and

P.W.3, P.W.4 and accused belong to non-scheduled caste. In that effect, he

issued Ex-P.3 report.

19.In view of the above evidence, the prosecution proved that

P.W.1 and P.W.2 belong to Schedule Caste and P.W.3, P.W.4 and accused

belong to non-schedule caste.

20.The defence side did not dispute the evidence of Tahsildar

(P.W.6) and Ex-P.3.

21.Further, prosecution has examined one Mr.Ravikannan,

19/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

Tahsildar (P.W.8). He deposed that the accused belong to non-scheduled

community. To that effect, he issued Ex-P.5 certificate.

22.The defence side did not dispute the evidence of Tahsildar

(P.W.8) and Ex-P.5. Hence, the prosecution has proved that P.W.1 and P.W.2

belong to Scheduled Caste; P.W.3, P.W.4 and accused belong to non-

scheduled community.

23.P.W.1 and P.W.2 have deposed that the accused uttered their

caste name and also assaulted them. The prosecution has proved the place of

occurrence. The Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and filed

observation mahazar (Ex-P.2) and rough sketch (Ex-P.9). In the observation

mahazar and rough sketch, it is clearly stated that the occurrence happened in

a street (viz., public place). Though P.W.1 and P.W.2 deposed that the accused

persons uttered their caste name, P.W.3 and P.W.4 who belong to non-

scheduled community did not depose that the accused persons uttered caste

name of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

24.To attract Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the

20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

prosecution has to prove that the accused caused humiliation to the Scheduled

Caste member in a public place and public view. Further, the prosecution has

to prove the said fact through independent evidence.

25.In this case, P.W.3 and P.W.4 belong to non-scheduled caste

but they did not depose that the accused uttered and abused P.W.1 and P.W.2

by saying their caste name.

26.This Court in MANIMEGALAI VS. STATE represented BY

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ADHIYAMANKOTTAI [2016 SCC

ONLINE MAD 9896] has held as follows:

“39.The expression ''public view'' employed in Section

3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, came for consideration in a case before

a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. In the said case, the

defacto complainant is a member of Scheduled Caste. He was

staying in a flat along with his family. The accused were residing

in the same flats. They were alleged to have called the defacto

complainant and his wife by their caste. It was contended that

the occurrence did not take place in public view as no public

person was present. Justice V.S.Agarwal (as His Lordship then

21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

was) took the view that for the purpose of 'public view' employed

in Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act, it is not necessary that a huge

crowd must present, it is enough two or more members of the

public were present, heard and viewed, as four persons residing

in the same flats viewed the occurrence, the occurrence had

taken place in public view.

40.However, Justice B.A.Khan (as His Lordship then was)

took the view that the persons who were present and viewed must

be independent persons, it will not include his friends,

Associates, neighbours and thus the residents of the same flats

will not be independent persons, so the occurrence had not taken

place in 'public view'.

41.The said tangle was referred to a third Judge, namely,

Hon'ble Justice S.K.Agarwal [Daya Bhatnagar vs. State of Delhi

{(2004 (109) DLT 915}].

41.Hon'ble Justice S.K.Agarwal endorsed the view of

Hon'ble Justice B.A.Khan and observed as under:

''19. The SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object to

protect vulnerable section of the society. Sub-clauses (i) to (xv) of

Section 3(i) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that

might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub-clause(x) is

the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been

made punishable. The Legislature required 'intention' as an

22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

essential ingredient for the offence of Insult', "intimidation' and

"humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled

Tribe in any place within "public view'. Offences under the Act

are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the

offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which

suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the

Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims

and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section

3(i)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public

persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be

independent and impartial and not interested in any of the

parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close

relationship or association with the complainant, would

necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the

interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned

brother Mr.Justice B.A. Khan. The relevant portion of his

judgment reads as under:

"I accordingly hold that expression within 'public view'

occurring in Section 3(i)(x) of the Act means within the view

which includes hearing, knowledge or accessibility also, of a

group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few

who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked

with the complainant through any close relationship or any

business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are

not participating members with him in any way. If such group of

people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the

requirement of 'public view' within the meaning of the expression

23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

used."

43.Thus from the language used in Section 3(1)(x) of the

Act and the above survey of case-laws, it is very clear that for an

offence under Section 3(1) 3(x) of SC&ST Act, at the time of

occurrence, some independent members of the public should hear

and view the utterances made by the accused towards a member

of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community.”

27.Hence, the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act

ha not been satisfactorily proved. Further, in this case, the Deputy

Superintendent of Police (P.W.12) was nominated by the Superintendent of

Police vide Ex-P.8 proceeding. He was transferred pending the investigation.

P.W.13 who is the successor of P.W.12 continued the investigation and filed

charge sheet. P.W.13 was not duly nominated by the Superintendent of Police

as per Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Rules, 1995. Further, P.W.12 was directed by the Supreintendent

of Police to complete the investigation within 30 days from November 16

th

2012, i.e., the date of Ex-P.8 proceedings. However, in this case, the

Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet dated June 25

th

, 2014 into Court

on August 6

th

, 2014. Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

provisions of Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 has also not been adhered properly.

28.It is to be noted that Rule 7 of Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is mandatory in

nature. Hence, this Court decides that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST (POA) Act has not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable

doubt. For the above stated reasons, this Court is of the view that the

prosecution miserably failed to establish the charge framed against the

accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. In this regard, Trial

Court has not properly considered the evidence and applied law. Hence, the

Trial Court's judgment is liable to be interfered by this Court. Point No.(iii) is

answered accordingly against the prosecution and in favour of the accused.

29.In this case, the occurrence took place on November 12

th

,

2012. FIR was registered on November 17

th

, 2012. Hence, there is a delay in

registering FIR. P.W.2 and P.W.4 are injured witnesses and they were admitted

in hospital as in-patients. In view of the nature of the injuries and also the

nature of the evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that

25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

though there was a delay of four days in lodging complaint and registering

FIR, the said delay would not affect the case of the prosecution. Hence, the

arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the accused in this regard is

rejected.

Conclusion

30.Resultantly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the

following manner:

(i) Conviction and sentence imposed against

A1, A2, A3 and A4 for the offence under Section

323 of IPC (3) counts are sustained.

(ii) Conviction under Section 326 of IPC

against A4 is sustained. However, punishment

imposed by the Trial Court for the offence under

Section 326 of IPC is modified as hereunder:

A4 shall undergo SIX MONTHS

OF SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT and a

26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default thereof, to

undergo ONE MONTH OF SIMPLE

IMPRISONMENT;

(iii) Charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST

(POA) Act against A1 to A4 is not proved and

accordingly, the appellants / A1 to A4 are acquitted

from the said charge.

(iv) The period of imprisonment, if any

already undergone by A1, A2, A3 and A4 shall be

given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

(v) Sentence imposed to A4 shall run

concurrently.

(vi) Thirty days time counting from today is

granted to A1 to A4 for surrendering before the

Trial Court. If not surrendered within thirty days

from today, the Trial Court is directed to take

necessary steps to secure A1, A2, A3 and A4

commit them to the prison to undergo the

remaining period of imprisonment.

27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

28 / 02 / 2024

Index : Yes

Internet : Yes

Neutral Citation : No

Speaking order

TK

To

1.The Sessions Judge

Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases

Registered under the SC / ST (POA) Act, 1989,

Villupuram.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police

Office of the DSP

Gingee, Villupuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor

High Court of Madras.

28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

TK

PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN

CRL.A.NO.812 OF 2016

28 / 02 / 2024

30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis