Madras High Court
Bhuvaneshwari vs State Rep. By on 9 July, 2012
Author: C.S.Karnan
Bench: C.S.Karnan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :09.07.2012 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice C.S.KARNAN Crl.RC.No.1025 of 2007 Bhuvaneshwari ... Appellant vs. 1.State rep. by Inspector of Police, D-6 Anna Square Police Station, Crime No.652/2006. 2.T.M.Mohamed Abu Bakker ... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code against the Judgment dated 09.05.2007 passed by the Principal and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court No.V in S.C.No.510 of 2006. For Appellant :Mr.G.Justin For Respondents :Mr.C.Balasubramanian (for R1) Additional Public Prosecutor R2 No Appearance JUDGMENT
The petitioner has preferred the present revision in Crl.R.C.No.1025 of 2007, against the Judgment dated 09.05.2007 in S.C.No.510 of 2006, on the file of the Principal and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court No.V, Chennai.
2.The short facts of the case are as follows:-
The first respondent herein had registered a complaint stating that one Mr.Senthilkumar belongs to scheduled caste and is working as Assistant in the office of the Commissioner, Land Reforms and Agricultural Income Tax and during this point of time, the Superintendent of that office had abused the said Senthilkumar by degrading his caste. The same was questioned by the revision petitioner herein, for which the said Superintendent had abused her. Hence, the case has been registered against the accused for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. Subsequently, the Investigation Officer had conducted enquiry and filed charge sheet against the accused namely Mohammed Abu Bakker, the second respondent herein. Thereafter, trial was conducted before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai.
3.On the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined and 7 exhibits were marked. On the side of the defence, no witness was examined but 8 documents were marked as exhibits. After trial, the accused was not found guilty since the prosecution had not proved the case beyond doubt. Therefore, PW1 has filed the above revision before this Court.
4.The highly competent counsel Mr.G.Justin appearing for the petitioner submits that the trial Court erroneously viewed that the evidence of prosecution witness 2 was not trustworthy and reliable. Further, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 corroborates the occurrence of the incident but their evidence was also not considered. PW2 is not an interested witness and she is also working with PW1 as co-employee and she had witnessed the said occurrence. The said occurrence had happened in the public office and the accused insulted the two employees by way of degrading their caste by saying palla paiyan. As such, the accused is punishable for an offence under SC/ST Act. PW1 had marked community certificate and also disclosed the entire facts. Further, the accused and the defacto complainant had continued to have a heated argument and during that argument, PW2 had informed the accused to speak normally and informed him that she would otherwise give a complaint before the Commissioner. After hearing the same, the accused further used unparliamentary words in front of other co-employees. However, the prosecution case has been proved beyond doubt and all the prosecution witnesses have spoken on the same lines regarding incident. The Investigation Officer also has duly conducted enquiry and filed the report. As per report, the case has been proved. Hence, the very competent counsel entreats the Court to punish the accused under SC/ST Act.
5.The very competent Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submits that the Investigation Officer had received a complaint from the defacto complainant and registered the said case in Cr.No.652 of 2006, on the file of Anna Square Police Station, for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C., against the second respondent herein. After comprehensive enquiry, the charge sheet has been filed and the case was tried in the Sessions Court. On the side of the prosecution, 7 witnesses were examined and the prosecution case was proved, without any lapse. As such, the accused has to be punished.
6.On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the trial Court's judgment, this Court does not find any discrepancy in the order passed by the trial Court for acquitting the accused. It is seen that as per the prosecution case, one Mr.Senthilkumar, who is a star witness in the instant case and as he has also been allegedly abused has not come forward to extend his co-operation to the prosecution case. Further, on the side of the prosecution, no witness from other communities have been examined. Further, the accused belongs to a minority community, which is equally ranked with the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. Hence, the above revision is dismissed.
7.In the result, the above revision is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in S.C.No.510 of 2006 dated 09.05.2007 on the file of the Principal and Sessions Judge, City Civil Court No.V, Chennai, is confirmed.
09.07.2012
vs
Index :Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
To
The Principal and Sessions Judge,
City Civil Court No.V,
Chennai.
C.S.KARNAN. J.
vs
Crl.RC.No.1025 of 2007
09.07.2012