Madras High Court
Selvi vs Hemanth Kumar on 3 March, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.A.No.504 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.03.2025
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Criminal Appeal No.504 of 2017
----
Selvi .. Appellant
Versus
1. Hemanth Kumar
2. Vadivel
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Mamallapuram,
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 read with Section 378 of Code
of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.187 of 2007 on
the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and
to set aside the judgment acquitting the first and second Respondents/Accused
passed on 18.08.2015 and convict the first and second Respondent/Accused
for the offences for which they have been charged.
For Appellant .. Mr. David Sundar Singh
For R1 and R2 .. Mr. J. Ravikumar
for M/s. Arunachalam & Associates
For R3 .. Mrs, G.V.Kasthuri
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal had been filed by one of the victims in this case, seeking to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 passed in S.C.No.187 of 2007 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 1/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 Chengalpattu.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The case of the Prosecution is that P.W-4, is running a Non Governmental Organisation in the name of International Justice Mission and he came to know that the Accused 1 and 2 are running a rice mill in which several persons were employed for very low wages besides they were made to work for several hours. It was also complained that the workers were confined within the rice mill premises and they were not permitted to go out of the rice mill. After hearing the grievance of the victim workers, P.W-4 has met P.W-
5, Village Assistant and sought his help. On the basis of the information received from P.W-4, P.W-5 has given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, E-5, Koovathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District in which it was stated that the Accused 1 and 2 have employed (i) Shankar, Son of Ganesan (ii) Slevi, Wife of Shankar, (iii) Jayapaul, Son of Duraisamy (iv) Bakkiyam, Wife of Gopal, (v) Ravi, Son of Duraisamy, (vi) Velliyan, Son of Ravi, (vii) Selvam, Son of Duraisamy, (viii) Mrs. Bangaru, Wife of Late. Duraisamy and (ix) Sandhiya, Wife of Selvam. It was also stated by P.W-5 that the aforesaid 9 persons were treated as bonded labourers and subjected to physical and mental torture by the Respondents 1 and 2/Accused 1 and 2 and requested to take https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 2/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 action against them. On the basis of such complaint given by P.W-5, the case in Crime No. 305 of 2006 was registered on 11.11.2006 as against the Accused 1 and 2 under Sections 1, 2 and 4 of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Ex.P-3 is the First Information Report.
2.2. On receipt of Ex.P-3, P.W-10, Deputy Superintendent of Police proceeded to the Balaji Rice Mill on the same day namely 11.11.2006 along with the Village Administrative Officer, P.W-1. On reaching the rice mill, P.W-10 drew a rough sketch and observation mahazar in the presence of witnesses Sekar and Vijayan. Ex.P-2 is the observation mahazar and Ex.P-7 is the rough sketch. P.W-10 also recorded the statement of Vijayan-P.W-5, Sekar, Adikesavan, Raji, Murugammal, Selvam and Bhakiyam and recorded their statement. On 13.11.2006, P.W-10 also recorded the statement of Jayapaul, Sandhiya and Bangaru. On the basis of such information, he submitted an alteration report under Ex.P-9 altering the offences for which the case was registered under Sections 1, 2 and 4 of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 into one of 341, 344, 353 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, Section 3 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, P.W-10 collected the community certificates of those who were https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 3/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 detained as bonded labourers by the Accused 1 and 2. In this context, P.W-10 also enquired Mr. Balasubramaniam, Tahsildar and Mr. Ramakrishna, Revenue Divisional Officer and recorded their statement. After concluding his investigation,P.W-10 filed the charge sheet against the Accused 1 and 2 before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram and it was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 4 of 2007. Thereafter, summons were issued to the Accused and on their appearance, copies were furnished to them under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the offences alleged against the Accused 1 and 2 are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chenglapattu. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chenglapattu, on receipt of the records in PRC No.4 of 2007 and on appearance of Accused, has taken the case on file in S.C. No. 187 of 2007. After hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Counsel for the defence, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge had framed the charges against the Accused 1 and 2 under Sections 16 and 18 of Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 r/w. Section 34 of IPC; under Section 3(1)(vi) r/w. Section 34 of IPC; under Section 14(1) of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 r/w. Section 34 of IPC; under Section 344 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Section 352 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 4/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 Accused 1 and 2 denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial was ordered. During trial, the Prosecution had examined 10 witnesses as P.W- 1 to P.W-10 and marked 18 documents as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-18 besides M.O-1 – Wooden log measuring 67 centimeter alleged to have been used by the Accused 1 and 2 to assault the bonded labourers.
2.3. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chenglapattu, on analysing the entire material evidence on record, acquitted the Accused 1 and 2 on the ground that there is no evidence made available to show that the Accused 1 and 2 have given the bonded labourers advance amount. It was also stated that there is no evidence to show that the alleged bonded labourers were confined within the rice mill premises and they were not permitted to go out of the rice mill. Further, those who come to the rice mill for grinding the grains have directly paid the wages to those who were employed in the rice mill. Therefore, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chenglapattu concluded that the Prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the Accused 1 and 2/Respondents 1 and 2 herein.
2.4. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 passed in S.C. No. 187 of 2007, the present Appeal had been filed by one of the victims under the provisions of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 5/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that based on the complaint preferred by P.W-4, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram directed the Village Administrative Officer to give a complaint. Based on the complaint of Village Administrative Officer/P.W-1, a case has been registered by the Koovathur Police Station in Crime No.305 of 2006 under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mamallapuram Sub-Division had proceeded with investigation. He recorded the statement of the employees of the Mill and examined the Tahsildar, Cheyyur, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Maduranthagam. He had also examined the Complainant, P.W-4/Selvan Sudhakar who runs the Non Governmental Organisation named as International Justice Mission and laid the final report alleging violation of the provisions of the Act as mentioned above. The learned Trial Judge found that there was no proceeding from the Superintendent of Police to nominate the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case.
4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Bonded Labour (System) Abolition Act, 1976 and also to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 6/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 Union of India (UOI) and Others reported in MANU/SC/0038/1982, particularly in para 20 and also to the reported judgment of this Court in the case of Raja v. Palani Chettiar and Others reported in MANU/TN/2156/2017. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also relied on the reported decision of the Honourbale Supreme Court in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others reported in MANU/SC/0038/1982 and the reported decision of this Court in the case of Raja v. Palani Chettiar and Others reported in MANU/TN/2156/2017. It is his submission that the minimum sentence is not mentioned under the Act and only maximum sentence is mentioned. In this case, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, Chengalpattu by judgment dated 18.08.2015 had acquitted the Accused as though the charges framed by the Court had not been proved by the Prosecution. It is the case of the Appellant that as per the provisions of the Bonded Labour (System) Abolition Act, 1976, it is the burden of the Respondents/Accused that they had not advanced any amount on bond and had not extracted the work from the victims by restricting their movement. The learned Judge, however, shifted the burden on the labourers who had alleged violations of the provisions of The Bonded Labour (System) Abolition Act, 1976. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 7/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 Chengalpattu had misdirected himself the provisions of the Act had acquitted the Accused from the charges. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the Appellant seeks to set aside the judgment in S.C.No.187 of 2007 dated 18.08.2015.
5. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the trial Court had acquitted the Respondents by finding that the Prosecution failed to prove the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt. He invited the attention of this Court to Sections 16 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the old provisions of Section 3(1)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2/Accused 1 and 2 that Balaji Rice Mill is not a big Rice Mill. It is a small Rice Mill which grinds rice as rice flour and it is not a Rice Mill which deals with huge quantities of paddy being polished as rice. In the cross examination, both P.W-1 and P.W-2 they have stated that they are directly paid by the customers of the Rice Mill. For grinding flour, Re.1/- and for lifting the rice bag into the mill machine they are paid Rs.3/-. For every stage of conversion of paddy into https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis rice and( Uploaded rice into rice flour they are paid directly by the on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 8/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 customers. Also in the cross examination they admitted that they can move out of the Rice Mill towards side gate of the compound wall of the Rice Mill as and when they wish. Under those circumstances, the cross examination of P.W-1 and P.W-2 clearly indicates that there is no violation of the alleged provisions of law warranting the Accused 1 and 2 to be convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court.
6. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 that before proceeding with investigation, the Superintendent of Police of the District shall nominate a competent Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case registered under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Child Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986. To convict the Accused. there shall be some materials available to the Court. Here, what had been raised by the Village Administrative Officer as P.W-1 does not indicate that the Accused-1 and Accused-2, the Owners of the Balaji Rice Mill had not curtailed the rights of his employees or treated them like bonded labour. They had deposed that they were paid Rs.4,000/- before ever giving job. For the allegation that they were not allowed to take up work outside the Balaji Rice Mill or not permitted to move out of the mill, P.W-1 and P.W-2 in their cross https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 9/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 examination, admitted that they used to move out through the side gate of the compound wall of the Rice Mill. The evidence of P.W-2 indicates that she was not aware of the claim made by the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mamallapuram who claimed to have released 9 persons from the Rice Mill. Had it been true, they should have been examined before the Court as Prosecution witnesses. The Prosecution failed to examine those witnesses who are claimed to be employees of the Rice Mill as a bonded labourer. It is the defence of the Respondents 1 and 2 that some voluntary organisations claiming to be working for the poor and downtrodden are foisting cases to extract money from businessmen who run Rice Mill and other mills for the selfish goal and this is a glaring example of such people who claimed to be working for the poor and downtrodden people to uplift their social condition. The evidence available in the cross examination of the Prosecution witnesses disproved the claim of P.W-4 that the so-called victims were treated as bonded labourers. Under those circumstances, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu had on proper appreciation of evidence acquitted the Accused.
7. In cases of this nature, the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned had to nominate the Investigation Officer as per the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Here in this case, without https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 10/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 proper procedure adopted by the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, the Deputy Superintendent of Police Mamallapuram himself conducted the investigation and laid the charge sheet before the Court. The evidence of the Official witnesses particularly P.W-9/Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W- 10/Deputy Superintendent of Police, in their cross examination, clearly disprove the case of the Prosecution. Therefore, on proper appreciation of evidence, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu had acquitted the Accused. The claim made by Revenue Divisional Officer that 9 bonded labourers from the Mill of the Accused, had been released cannot be countenanced when none of them were produced before the Court. Apart from that, P.W-2 when confronted in cross examination has stated that he was not aware of such visit of Revenue Divisional Officer and release of bonded labourers. She even denied the suggestion that she had been tutored by Police Officials. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu is well reasoned judgment and it does not warrant any interference.
8. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 relied on the ruling in the case of Selvakumar v. Manjula and others reported in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 11/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 MANU/SC/1692/2022, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh reported in MANU/SC/0282/2009, in the case of Kanniammal v. Govindan and Others reported in MANU/TN/0868/2019 and in the case of Periyasamy and Others v. State reported in MANU/TN/1869/2015 in support of his submission and contended that the Prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegations against the Accused 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 that the Appeal has to be dismissed as having no merits.
9. On the above contention, this Court heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.G.V.Kasthuri appearing for the third Respondent, who only stated that as against the acquittal of the Accused, the Prosecution had not preferred any Appeal.
Point for consideration:
Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 in S.C. No. 187 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, is to be set aside as perverse?
10. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 12/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 the State/third Respondent. Perused the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-10. Perused the documents marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. Ex.P-10 is the Caste Certificate of P.W-2, Ravi. Ex.P-6 is the Caste Certificate of P.W-3, Selvi. Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-16 are the Caste Certificates of the alleged former employees of the Balaji Rice Mill.
11. As per the evidence P.W-9 and P.W-10, the claim made by P.W-9 that he had released them and granted Rs.1,000/- each on the release was not accepted by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu on the ground he had not marked those documents to substantiate the release of the bonded labourers. Under those circumstances, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu had rejected the claim of the Prosecution that the Prosecution failed to prove the existence of the bonded labour system in the Rice Mill run by P.W-1 and P.W-2.
12. P.W-4 had instigated the case against the Rice Mill owners as though they are practicing bonded labour system by engaging people belonging to below the poverty line and who happens to be the members of the downtrodden community and exploiting them. When the Rice Mill does not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 13/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 have pucca compound and there are entry and exit points through the side walls for the employees to move out, the claim of P.W-4 that bonded labour system was practised by the Owners of the Balaji Rice Mill and the bonded labourers were confined within the Rice Mill compound is not true. P.W-1 is the V.A.O who claimed to have instituted the complaint based on the directions of Revenue Divisional Officer, Mamallapuram. As per the provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned had to nominate a Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case. In this case, no such proceeding were initiated by the Superintendent of Police. It is true that P.W-1 and P.W-2 claimed that they have received advance money before their job in the Rice Mill but that alone cannot be sufficient to attract the provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
13. Based on the evidence of P.W-4 alone, the Accused-1 and Accused-2 cannot be convicted. The evidence of P.W-4 is a hearsay witness. He claimed that the Owners of the Rice Mill used to attack the workers. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 14/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, particularly to Section 2 of Definitions will not hold good in this case as there is no claim of mortgage debt. Just because the Accused did not enter the witness box and let in evidence, the evidence of the Prosecution cannot at all be accepted. The evidence of the Prosecution has to prove the existence of Bonded labour system in Balaji Rice Mill. There is clear evidence that the Labourers are the employees of the Rice Mill and they are paid directly by the customers of the Rice Mill who come for polishing the paddy or for other purpose. Those who bring rice for grinding, for polishing has to pay the employees for each and every stage for emptying the sacks containing Rice into the Rice Polishing machine or the rice in to grinding machine at the rate of Rs.3/- per kilogram. P.W-4 had in his evidence stated that his Organisation is not a registered Organisation and it gives an impression or presumption that they are running an Organisation only to harass employers by threatening them by giving complaint against them as though they had committed the offences alleged in the the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Child Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986. The suggestions put to the Prosecution witness by the learned Counsel for the Defence that the Rice Mill owners and other business men in Chengalpattu town protested against https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 15/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 foisting of false cases under the pretext of invoking the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the instigation of a private individuals as though they are running those Organizations violating the provisions of the Act was rejected by P.W-4 and P.W-1/Village Administrative Officer.
14. On perusal of the cross examination of P.W-3/Selvi, it is found that she is not aware of the proceedings regarding freeing the bonded labourers at all. She was not aware who have come to the Rice Mill, who were released etc., That apart, the evidence of P.W-9 indicates that Balaji Rice Mill is abutting the Office of Revenue Divisional Officer. This was also admitted in the cross examination of P.W-9/Revenue Divisional Officer that the Office of the Revenue Divisional Officer is adjacent to the Balaji Rice Mill. The Investigation Officer/P.W-10 admitted in his cross examination that before proceeding with investigation, the Superintendent of Police had not nominated him to be the Investigation Officer in this case. P.W-10 also admitted that he had not prepared rough sketch showing the physical appearance of Balaji Rice Mill and its compound. He admitted that he had not recorded the details of the bonded labourers working in the Balaji Rice Mill and also the Rice Mill is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 16/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 adjacent to the High Road near the Bus stop. He had claimed ignorance regarding the suggestion that only 3 Horse Power Mill was available in the Balaji Rice Mill. He had not conducted investigation as to whether 20 employees are present in the Balaji Rice Mill as on the date of his inspection. He also admitted in cross examination that he had not verified the antecedents of the Organisation run by P.W-4. P.W-10 was unable to give satisfactory explanation regarding non-examination of so called employees for whom community certificates were issued by Revenue Officials under Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-18 or who were alleged to have been treated as bonded labourers.
15. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the provisions of the the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and contended that the Accused had to disprove the claim of the Prosecution. Such a contention cannot be countenanced. The Prosecution had to stand or fall on the strength of the Prosecution evidence. During cross examination P.W-2 admitted that they have the freedom to move out. Also it is clear evidence in cross examination that those who bring rice and paddy to Balaji Rice Mill, will pay for the job done by the employees directly to the employees and if it is for grinding rice into flour Re.1/- per kilogram will be paid. If it is for shifting the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 17/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 Rice Bag to the Mill, Rs.3/- per kilogram will be collected as wages by the employees from the customers. Thus, in all the stages of processing such as lifting, grinding and loading of paddy, amount will be paid by the customers directly to the employees. When that be the case, the claim of P.W-4 that bonded labour system is in vogue in Balaji Mills and its neighbourhood cannot be accepted. The evidence of P.W-4 does not have any weightage in the absence of proof by P.W-9/the Deputy Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer who had conducted enquiry regarding the existence of bonded labour system. Before enlisting labourers, the labourers were paid Rs.4,000/- in advance and that alone will not help the Prosecution to convict the Accused. To attract the case against the Accused that they had treated the labourers as bonded labourers, one of the ingredients is advance money has to be paid. In this case, no document had been marked to prove that either advance amount was paid or the employees were treated as bonded labourers or they were not paid their due wages to attract the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. If the Court convicts the Accused based on the evidence of P.W-4, it would amount to travesty of justice. P.W-4 appears to be threatening Rice Mill Owners in and around the Villages in Kancheepuram District without any valid proof. Just because the Owners of the Rice Mill happens to be OBC community and employees happens to be from a different community it does not attract the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 18/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 provisions of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. If coercive steps are taken without any materials, it will result in refusal of employment to the people belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In such event, the Owners of the Mills will be apprehensive to employ the persons belonging to SC and ST communities on the ground that they will be trapped in false cases by persons with vested interest. This is a glaring example of similar type. The Prosecution failed to prove the claim made by P.W-4 with relevant proof to attract the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
16. M.O-1 was seized by the Investigation Officer/P.W-10 and when he was confronted regarding the same, he was unable to explain in clear terms as to why he seized the material object. Merely based on evidence in examination in chief, the Court cannot convict the Accused. The cross examination is a vital part of the Criminal trial to elicit the truth. Here, P.W-2 and P.W-3 are the employees of the Rice Mill. Their evidence in cross examination indicates that they were paid by the customers directly. P.W-3 was not aware about the claim of release of persons who were treated as Bonded Labourers in the rice mill, the time of such release, whether it was day time or evening time or night hours. Under those circumstances, the non- https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 19/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 examination of the so called persons who were released from bondage as per P.W-9 is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. As per the document under Ex.P- 11 to Ex.P-18, when they were produced before the Court, the Court has to draw adverse inference against the claim of the Prosecution.
17. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to the reported decision in the case of Raja vs. Palani Chettiar and Others reported in MANU/TN/2156/2017 in which there is also a similar case of bonded Labour where the learned Judge had relied on the reported decision in the case of Sageer and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in 2012 (91) AIR 59 and the relevant portion is extracted as follows:
..."Therefore, the discrepancies noticed in the evidence of a rustic witness who is subjected to grueling cross-examination should not be blown out of proportion. To do so is to ignore hard realities of village life and give undeserved benefit to the Accused who have perpetrated heinous crime. The basic principle of appreciation of evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be appreciated as a whole The rustic witness as compared to an educated witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further, a witness is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relative(s). Therefore, the Court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while appreciating evidence of a rustic witness".
18. This decision will not help the case of the Appellant. In this case, P.W-2 in his cross examination admitted that the customers of the Rice Mill https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 20/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 pay the employees directly and therefore, there is no question of bonded labour. Regarding the restrictions of movement, there is evidence in cross examination that the employees could not move out of the Mill after their working hours. Only if the employees are restricted within the compound wall, it will attract the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Here it is not the case. Further, the so called released labourers were not examined by the Prosecution. Apart from the above, the Revenue Divisional Officer/P.W-9 had not produced the report regarding the release of bonded labourers through his evidence. P.W-10/Investigation Officer had admitted that in the cases of this nature, there are Vigilance Committees in the respective District and the matter has to be enquired by them and only based on their report the investigation shall be proceeded. Further, the Superintendent of Police has to nominate an Investigation Officer to investigate the case of this nature, but no such nomination was made in this case. Therefore, the decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant will not be of any use to this case.
19. Another decision relied on by the Counsel for the Appellant in support of his contention is People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. union of India reported in MANU/SC/0038/1982 and the relevant portion is held as below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 21/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 “... Any factor which deprives a person of a choice of alternatives and compels him to adopt one particular course of action may properly be regarded as 'force' and if labour or service is compelled as a result of such 'force', it would we 'forced labour'. Where a person is suffering from hunger or starvation, when he has no resources at all to fight disease or feed his wife and children or even to hide their nakedness... ...He would be in no position to bargain with the employer; he would have to accept what is offered to him. And in doing so he would be acting not as a free agent with a choice between alternatives but under the compulsion of economic circumstances and the labour or service provided by him would be clearly 'forced labour'. There is no reason why the word 'forced' should be read in a narrow and restricted manner so as to be confined only to physical or legal 'force' particularly when the national charter, its fundamental document has promised to build a new socialist republic where there will be socio- economic justice for all and every one shall have the right to work, to education and to adequate means of livelihood.
...The word 'force' must therefore be constructed to include not only physical or legal force but also force arising from the compulsion of economic circumstance which leaves no choice of alternatives to a person in want and compels himm to provide labour or service even though the remuneration received for it is less than the minimum wage of course, if a person provides labour " or service to another against receipt of the minimum wage, it would not be possible to say that the labour or service provided by him is 'forced' labour' because he gets what he is entitled under law to receive.”
20. The same yardstick applies for this case also. However, the facts involved in this case is contrary to the one dealt with in the reported ruling. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant will not be helpful to the Appellant's case.
21. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on the reported ruling in the case of Periyasamy and others v. State reported in MANU/TN/1869/2015 regarding https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mandatory ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01provision pm ) of Rule 7 (1) in 22/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and if the mandatory provision is not followed, the investigation is vitiated. Here, P.W-10 admitted that no proceedings had been issued by the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned nominating him as the investigation officer. Therefore, without following the mandatory provision, the investigation in this case had been proceeded, which itself is contrary to the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
22. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on the reported decision in the case of Kanniammal v. Govindan and Others reported in MANU/TN/0868/2019, where the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted as below:
“13. The release order now attempted to rely upon does not form part of the Prosecution document. The testimony of the witnesses are not cogent and free from embellishment. In the Inspection Report and in the complaint Ex.P-1, the witnesses have not disclosed when the advance money was given to the labourers. First the Prosecution ought to have collected materials to show money was advanced. Then they should have placed prima facie material to show they were exploited as bonded labourers, not allowed to go out from the Mill Premises.”
23. Here, in this case, there is evidence through P.W-2 that they were paid advance, but that alone cannot be taken into consideration to convict the Accused under the provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 23/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 1976 as stated in the above reported decision. Here, also the Prosecution had not established the case to attract the provisions of Bonded Labour Abolition Act.
24. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh reported in MANU/SC/0282/2009, it was held as follows:-
“33. From the above decisions, in Chandrappa and Others v. State of Karnataka iin MANU/SC/7108/2007: the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal were culled out:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions such as "substantial and compelling reasons', good and sufficient grounds', "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the Accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded( by https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the trial Uploaded Court.” on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 24/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017
25. Even though, the reported ruling relates to the facts of the case under Section 302 IPC, as far as appreciation of evidence in Criminal trials regarding re-appreciation of evidence, in cases of acquittal there is a strong presumption in favour of the Accused and the Accused is presumed innocent until the contrary is proved. The second stage in the criminal case, after trial is conviction. To reverse the conviction, in Appeal, the Appellate Court shall be slow in reversing the judgment of aquittal. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
26. Here in this case, the learned Trial Judge on proper appreciation of evidence has acquitted the Accused. The Prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges against the Accused 1 and 2. Therefore, this Court on re- appreciation of the same materials is unable to reverse the finding recorded by the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
27. In the light of the above discussion, this Court arrives at a conclusion that the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu had on proper appreciation of evidence had arrived at a https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 25/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 conclusion that the Prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the Accused. The judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 in S.C.No.187 of 2007 passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu is found well reasoned judgment, not perverse. It does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered against the Appellant and in favour of the Accused 1 and 2/Respondents 1 and 2.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 passed in S.C. No. 187 of 2007 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, is confirmed.
03.03.2025 Shl Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 26/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police Mamallapuram, Kancheepuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court Madras, Chennai – 600 104.
4.The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 27/28 Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J Shl Judgment made in Crl.A.No.504 of 2017 03.03.2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm ) 28/28