Madras High Court
K.C.Subramani vs State By on 24 October, 2018
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 24.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.R.C.No.1516 of 2013
K.C.Subramani ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. State by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Katpadi
Vellore District
(Thiruvalam police Station
Cr.No.306/2003)
2. Murugan
3. Krishnan ... Respondents
Prayer: The Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 read with
401 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated
04.12.2006 in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2005 made by the learned Principal
District and Sessions Judge, Vellore (constituted as special Court under
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989), praying for enhancement of sentence.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sathia Chandran
For Respondent-1 : Mr.R.Ravichandran
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For Respondents 2 & 3: No appearance
ORDER
This criminal revision has been filed against the order dated 04.12.2006 made in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2005 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, praying for enhancement of sentence.
http://www.judis.nic.in 2 2 The case of the prosecution is that on 05.10.2003 at about 8.00 am, when the petitioner/PW1 was cleaning his land, bearing survey No.75/2-A, along with his wife PW2 and son, because of civil dispute, respondents 2 and 3/A1 & A2, insulted and humiliated the petitioner by filthy language intentionally in the public view by degrading his caste. They removed the boundary stone fixed by the authority and threatened PW1 and PW2 that they will kill them. Therefore, PW1 went to Thiruvalam Police Station and lodged a complaint against respondents 2 and 3/A1 & A2. But, the police officials refused to take up his complaint on file and hence, PW1 filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.36667 of 2003 before this Court to direct the respondent police to take up his complaint and enquire into the matter. Thereafter, as per the order of this Court dated 23.10.2003, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore, registered FIR in Cr.No.306 of 2003 and after investigation, filed a charge sheet against Respondents 2 and 3/A1 & A2 for the offences under Sections 341, 434, 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, which was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.13 of 2005.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3 3 In order to prove the case of the prosecution before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, PW1 to 11 were examined and Ex.P1 to 18 were marked along with a material object i.e. Boundary Stone. On the side of the defence, no one was examined and no document was marked. The learned Sessions Judge, after giving due opportunities to both the parties, convicted the respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each in default, to undergo 1 week imprisonment for the offence under Section 447 IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default, to undergo 1 week imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default, to undergo 1 week imprisonment for the offence under Sec.294(b) IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default, to undergo 3 months imprisonment for the offence under Sec.506(ii) IPC and acquitted the respondents 2 & 3 / A1 & A2 from Section 434 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 by judgment dated 04.12.2006.
4 Aggrieved against the above judgment, the petitioner/PW1 has preferred this criminal revision before this Court for enhancement of sentence.
http://www.judis.nic.in 4 5 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even though PW2 to PW4 had clearly spoken about the occurrence and the Sessions Court also found that the accused therein have committed offences under Sections 341, 434, 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, in order to secure the accused from undergoing the imprisonment, the Court below acquitted from offence under Section 434 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Even though the accused have been convicted, but only fine has been imposed hence, warrants interference.
6 The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for 1st respondent would submit that in order to prove the case of the prosecution, PW1 to PW4 were examined and they have clearly spoken about the occurrence and offences committed by the respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2. The learned Special Judge, rightly convicted the accused but erred in convicting the accused therein under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and only imposed fine.
http://www.judis.nic.in 5 7 Even though, notice has been served to respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 and their names have been printed in the cause list, there is no representation on behalf of respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2.
8 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the 1st respondent police and perused the materials available on record.
9 The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. When PW1 was cleaning his land along with his wife PW2 and son, respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2, standing on the road and scolded them in filthy language by degrading their caste name and threatened that they will kill them. PW1, in his complaint has stated that respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 removed the boundary stone fixed by the authority and threatened PW1 and PW2 that they will kill them. Therefore, PW1 lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vellore. The police registered FIR and after investigation, filed a charge sheet against respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 for the offences under Sections 341, 434, 447, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Case/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. PW1 to PW4 have categorically stated that http://www.judis.nic.in 6 respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 have committed offences as mentioned above. Though there is minor contradictions in the evidences of PW1 to PW4, sufficient materials are available to convict the accused under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, but the lower court acquitted the accused.
10 Neither the prosecution nor the revision petitioner/victim filed this appeal against acquittal under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, but, they have only filed this appeal seeking for enhancement of sentence. Though, the trial Court found respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 guilty of offences under Section 341, 447, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC, not found guilty of the offences under Section 434 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each in default, to undergo 1 week imprisonment for the offence under Section 447 IPC, to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each in default, to under go 1 week imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 IPC, to pay Rs.100/- each in default, to under go 1 week imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- each in default, to undergo 3 months imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii). Even though, the Trial Court http://www.judis.nic.in 7 found materials against the accused under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, the reason stated by the Sessions Judge for acquitting under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 is not legally sound. However, there is no appeal to interfere with the judgment of the Sessions Judge with reference to Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. PW1 to PW4's evidence have been substantiated before the Court and the Special Court found guilty and sentenced respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 without imprisonment which warrants interference of this Court. The trial court has also not stated any reason as to why the accused have not been imposed with any imprisonment, whereas, this Court finds that the respondents 2 & 3 / A1 & A2 have committed offences under Section 447, 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and records shows that respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 have committed these offences intentionally.
11 In the result, the Criminal Revision is partly allowed and the conviction imposed on respondents 2 & 3/A1 & A2 for the offences under Section 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 447 IPC is hereby confirmed and however, the sentence imposed is modified and the respondents http://www.judis.nic.in 8 2 & 3/A1 & A2 are directed to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.50/- each for the offence under Section 447 IPC, to undergo one month simple imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for the offence under Section 341 IPC, to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- each for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and to undergo three years simple imprisonment each for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. The sentences are directed to run concurrently. The trial court is directed to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.
24.10.2018
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order/non speaking order
ksa-2
To
1. The Principal District and Sessions Judge Vellore.
2. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras.
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Katpadi Vellore District.
(Thiruvalam police Station) http://www.judis.nic.in 9 P.VELMURUGAN, J., ksa-2 Crl.R.C.No.1516 of 2013 24.10.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in