Madras High Court
Iyyanar vs State Rep. By on 19 July, 2019
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.No.51 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 21/04/2021
Delivered on 28/06/2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 &
Crl.M.P.No.1139 of 2021
Iyyanar ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Gingee Police Station,
Villupuram District.
(Crime No.413 of 2014)
2.Jothi ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. and 14(A) (2)
of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 to set aside the conviction and sentence rendered in
Spl.Case No.237 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court
for SC/ST Act Cases, Villupuram District and acquit the accused from the
offence.
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.51 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr.C.Mohanraj
For Respondent : Mrs.T.P.Savitha
Government Advocate(Criminal Side)
for R1
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Villupuram in Special S.C.No.237 of 2015, dated 19.07.2019.
2. The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.413 of 2014, for offence under Sections 294 (B) & 323 of IPC r/w 3(2) (v)(a), 3 (1) (r)&(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Amendment Ordinance 2014, (In short "SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance 2014"), against the appellant/A1 and A2 on the complaint (Ex.P9) given by the defacto complainant (PW11). After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chenjee , and the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.17 of 2014. Since the offence is triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chenjee, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram and the same was taken 2/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 on file in S.C.No.92 of 2015. Thereafter, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vilupuram, made over the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Villupuram, for disposal and the same was taken on file as Special S.C.No.237 of 2015.
3. After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C., since there was a prima facie material to frame charges against the appellants, the learned Sessions Judge, farmed charges against the accused 1 and 2 for the offence under Sections 323 of IPC and 3(1)(x) SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.
4. After completing the trial and hearing of the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Judge found the appellant/A1 guilty for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(r)&(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment; and also found guilty for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment; and found the A2 guilty for the offence under 3/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 Section 323 of IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
5.Challenging the above said Judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/A1 has filed the present appeal before this Court.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per the F.I.R. (Ex.P6), the alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 07.10.2014 at about 06.00 a.m., but the complaint was lodged belatedly on 09.10.2014, at 09.00 hours and no plausible explanation was made by the defacto complainant. He would further submit that as per the evidence of P.W.4 (husband of the victim), and P.W.11 (victim), the alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 07.10.2014 and immediately the victim took treatment at Government Hospital, Tindivanam, but in contra as per the evidence of Doctor (P.W.7) and the Accident Register (Ex.P4), she was treated only on 08.10.2014 and the said material contradictions which are lead to serious doubt on the prosecution case.
7. Mr.Mohanraj, learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that as per the F.I.R., the motive alleged that the occurrence said to have taken 4/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 place due to a wordy quarrel arose between the parties, however, the motive for registering the case was not proved by the prosecution. It is further contended that the Court below failed to see that P.W.4 is the husband of the defacto complainant and he is the interested witness, so, he is taking hostile attitude. The learned counsel would further submit that all the main witnesses are interested witnesses and in the case like the circumstantial evidence, conviction based on the interested witnesses is bad in law. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that there are material contradictions in the prosecution witnesses, which would go to the root of the case of the prosecution. Without any valid reason, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant and it would have done only on presumption and assumption. Hence, he prayed for acquittal.
8. Mrs.T.P.Savitha, Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent Police would submit that both the appellant and the defacto complainant are neighbours and due to ball fallen on the house of the defacto complainant, she questioned the same, for which, the wife of the appellant herein quarrelled with the defacto complainant and at that time, the appellant / A1 came to that spot and after hearing same, he scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and uttered to her by using her caste name, and 5/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 also attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log and due to which, she sustained injuries on the several parts of the body and thereafter, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tindivanam and the doctor (P.W.7), who treated for the injury sustained by the defacto complainant, made entries in the Accident Register (Ex.P4). Though initially the defacto complainant made a complaint before the elders of the Village and since they have not properly responded, the defacto complainant approached the Police Station and filed the complaint (Ex.P9) and therefore, the delay in filing the FI.R. has been properly explained by the prosecution. Though the neighbours (P.W.1 to P.W.3), who stated to be eyewitness, have turned hostile, the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.11, she has clearly narrated the incident and her husband was examined as P.W.4 and the doctor, one who gave the treatment to the victim was examined as P.W.7 and from their evidence, it could be seen that the appellant scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and uttered her by using her caste and the defacto complainant sustained injury due to the attack of the appellant / first accused. Therefore, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and there is no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be dismissed.
6/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021
9. Heard Mr.C.Mohanraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mrs.T.P.Savithalearned Government Advocate [Crl. Side] appearing for the respondent and also perused the materials available on record.
10. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/PW11 belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and the appellant/A1 and A2 belong to Hindu Vanniyar Community. On 07.10.2014, at about 06.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant/P.W.11 was sweeping on the front side of her home, a ball fallen on her house and when she questioned the same, for which, the wife of the appellant herein quarrelled with the defacto complainant and at that time, the appellant / A1 came to that place and after hearing same, he scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and uttered to her by using her caste name, and also attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log on her forehead, right side of the head, right side shoulder and on the knee of the left leg and due to which, she sustained injury. Initially, she informed the incident to the elders of the Village, and since there was no response, she lodged a complaint (Ex.P9) before the respondent Police.
7/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021
11. Based on the complaint (Ex.P9) given by the defacto complainant/PW1, an FIR in Crime No.413 of 2014 was registered for offence under Sections 294 (B) & 323 of IPC r/w 3(2) (v)(a), 3 (1) (r)&(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance 2014, against the appellant/A1 and A2. After completing investigation, the respondent police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chenjee, and the same was taken on file as P.R.C.No.17 of 2014. Since the offence is triable by the Court of Session, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Chenjee, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Villupuram and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.92 of 2015. Thereafter, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Vilupuram, made over the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Villupuram, for disposal and the same was taken on file as Special S.C.No.237 of 2015.
12. During the trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW11 and 9 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P9 and no material object was exhibited. After completing the evidence of prosecution witnesses, when incriminating circumstances were culled out from the prosecution witnesses put before the accused, they had 8/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 denied as false and pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, neither witness, nor document was produced.
13. After considering the evidence on record and hearing on either side, the learned Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 19.07.2019 in Special S.C.No.237 of 2015, convicted and sentenced the appellant/A1 and A2 as stated above.
14. This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a fact finding Court, which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an independent finding. Accordingly, this Court appreciated the entire evidence and materials available on record to give independent finding.
15. In this case, there are totally two accused, in which, the appellant is A1 and the appellant and the defacto complaints are neighbours. On the side of the prosecution, totally, 11 witnesses were examined, out of which, the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.11.
16. A reading of the evidence of the defacto complainant, she has narrated the entire incidence. P.W.11 deposed that while sweeping her home, 9/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 a plastic ball fallen into her house and when she questioned the same, the wife of the appellant herein quarrelled with the defacto complainant and asked her to return the ball. When she (P.W.11) asked A2, why the ball fell in her home, A2 replied to defacto complainant, whether the ball fell on the food. Immediately, the first appellant / first accused came to the spot and told to his wife that why she was speaking with her (P.W.11) and uttered to her by using her caste name (me;j ,Usr;rpaplk; cdf;F vd;d ngr;R)/ and also attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log on her forehead, right side of the head, right side shoulder and on the knee of the left leg and therefore, she sustained injury and she was admitted at Government Hospital, Tindiavanam, by her husband (P.W.4) and thereafter made a complaint to the elders in the Village, and since there was no response, filed a complaint (Ex.P9) before the respondent-Police.
17. The husband of the defacto complainant was examined as P.W.4, and he had stated that he and the accused are the tenants under one Naidu and on the date of occurrence, when her wife (defacto complainant-P.W.11) was sweeping, a ball was found and asked whose ball is this? and if the ball had fallen on the mirror, the mirror would have been broken; and for that the 10/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 second accused replied that she was searching the ball for several days and; is it a mistake? and her son (son of the second accused) had not put the ball on the food?, and for which, there was a quarrel arose between them, and due to which, the first appellant scolded the defacto complainant (P.W.11) in filthy language and uttered by using her caste name and also attacked the defacto complainant with wooden log on her head, forehead, right side shoulder and thereafter, she was taken to Government Hospital, Tindivanam for treatment.
18. The doctor, who gave treatment to the defacto complainant (P.W.11) was examined as P.W.7 and in his evidence he has stated that when he was on duty on 08.10.2014, the husband of the defacto complainant (P.W.4) brought the defacto complainant (P.W.11) for treatment, on the history stated that she was beaten by two known persons with the wooden log and on examination of the defacto complainant, he found that there was a swelling on her forehead 6 x 6 cm, swelling on the right parietal scalp 3 x 3 cm, swelling on the right side arm 4 x 5 cm; and tenderness on the knee of the right side leg and made entry in Ex.P4 accident Register.
11/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021
19. The Tahsildar, who issued the Caste Certificate (Ex.P3) to the appellant was examined as P.W.6 and stated that the appellant belongs to Vanniyar Community. The Sub Collector, who issued the Report with regard to the Caste of the defacto complainant (Ex.P5) was examined as P.W.8 and stated that the defacto complainant belongs to Irular Community, which falls under Scheduled Caste Community.
20. A perusal of the evidence of the defacto complainant (P.W.11) and the evidence of the husband of the defacto complainant (P.W.4); and the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) and the Accident Register (Ex.P4), and the evidence of the Tahsildar (P.W.6) and the evidence of the Sub Collector (P.W.8), it could be seen that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt that the appellant has committed the offence under Sections 3 (1)(r) & (s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 323 of IPC.
21. Though it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the independent witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.3 have turned hostile, the cases of this nature, normally neighobours will not support the case any of the parties, because they wanted to be neutral. Though P.W.1. to P.W.3. stated to 12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 be eyewitnesses and they have not supported the case of the prosecution and they turned hostile, in this case, P.W.4 is the husband of the victim, P.W.11 is the victim and the version of the victim cannot be totally ignored and thrown away, more particularly, the evidence of the victim is supported by the medical evidence. The evidence of interested witnesses if found to have creditworthiness, the conviction could be based on an uncorroborated testimony. In cases of this nature, the independent witness mostly will not support the case of the prosecution. If the evidence of the sole witness is cogent, credible and trustworthy, the conviction is permissible.
22. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to delay in filing the F.I.R and the defacto complainant did not lodge complaint immediately soon after the occurrence. It is to be noted that soon after the incident, the defacto complainant (P.W.11) informed to the elders of the Village and since the elder of the Village have not properly responded, and she has to take treatment for the injury sustained by her, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Tindivanam and hence, subsequently, she went to the Police Station and filed the complaint (Ex.P9) before the respondent Police. Therefore, the delay is not an unnecessary delay and it would not fatal to the 13/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 case of the prosecution. Moreover, the delay in filing the complaint has been properly explained and this Court has satisfied with the reasons and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is not acceptable.
23. On combined reading of the evidence of the defacto complainant (P.W.11) and the evidence of the husband of the defacto complainant (P.W.4) and the evidence of the doctor (P.W.7) and the Accident Register (Ex.P4), and other documents available, the prosecution has established that the appellant has committed the offences under Sections 3 (1)(r) & (s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and Section 323 of IPC and the trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral evidence and other materials and convicted the appellant.
24. Hence, this Court can safely come to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence. In the light of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in this appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
14/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.51 of 2021
25. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.06.2021
Speaking Order / Non-speaking order
Index : Yes / No.
Internet : Yes.
rns
15/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.51 of 2021
To
1.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases,
Villupuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Gingee Police Station,
Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
16/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.51 of 2021
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
rns
Crl.A.No.51 of 2021 &
Crl.M.P.No.1139 of 2021
28.06.2021
17/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/