Madras High Court
Murugasen vs The State Rep. By on 13 October, 2022
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.10.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
Murugasen
... Appellant in Crl.A.No.404 of 2022 / A1
Vijayagovindaraj @ Vijayakumar
... Appellant in Crl.A.No.371 of 2022 / A2
Kumar
... Appellant in Crl.A.No.960 of 2022 / A3
..vs..
1. The State rep. By
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Perambalur Circle,
Maruvathur Police Station,
Perambalur District.
(Crime No.24 of 2007)
... Respondents in all the appeals
2. Mrs.Sathya
... 2nd respondent in Crl.A.No.960 of 2022
Page No.1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
Criminal Appeal Crl.A.No.404 of 2022 is filed under Section
374(1) Cr.P.C to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST(PoA) Act, Perambalur
by a judgment dated 08.03.2022 made in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2008 and to
acquit the appellant.
Criminal Appeal Crl.A.No.371 of 2022 is filed under Section
374(2) Cr.P.C to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST(PoA) Act, Perambalur
by a judgment dated 08.03.2022 made in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2008 and to
acquit the appellant.
Criminal Appeal Crl.A.No.960 of 2022 is filed under Section
374(2) Cr.P.C to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST(PoA) Act, Perambalur
by a judgment dated 08.03.2022 made in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2008 and to
acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Mr.E.C.Ramesh
(Crl.A.No.404 of 2022)
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prabakaran
(Crl.A.No.371 of 2022)
For Appellant : Mr.M.Jaikumar
(Crl.A.No.960 of 2022)
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran,
(in all the appeals) Additional Public Prosecutor
For PW1/
de-facto complainant : Mr.David Sundar Singh
(to assist prosecution)
Page No.2/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment, dated 08.03.2022 in Spl.S.C.No.04 of 2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST(PoA) Act, Perambalur.
2.The specific case of the prosecution is that the de-facto complainant Sathya belongs to a member of the Scheduled Caste community and the appellants belong to non members of the Scheduled Caste Community. PW1/Sathya and her husband PW2/Murugesan and 15 others received Rs.35,000/- from the first appellant/A1 as advance and doing contract labour work in the field of A1. The first appellant/A1 felt that the contract labourers did not perform their work in appropriate manner. Therefore, there was a misunderstanding between the first appellant and the contract labourers. So the first appellant locked the women labourers in a room and others in a grain storage and without providing food and water, the first appellant harassed them. Later, one Page No.3/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 Thangarasu/PW19, who was the contractor, settled the amount. Thereafter, while they were about to leave the place, the second appellant/A2 told that his cellphone was missing and PW1/Sathya might have stolen the cellphone. So he took PW1 to upstairs of the first appellant's house and removed her saree, blouse and skirt under the guise of searching and outraged her modesty. The accused 1 and 2 had beaten PW1 and caused injuries to her and also abused her by uttering her caste name. The third accused was also involved in all the harassments committed by the accused 1 and 2. Hence, PW1 gave a complaint against the appellants.
3. The respondent Police registered a case against the appellants in Crime No.24 of 2007 for the offence under Sections 342, 324, 506(ii) IPC r/w 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi), of SC/ST PoA Act. After investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate Perambalur and the same was taken on file in PRC.No.41 of 2007. Page No.4/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
4. The learned Magistrate after considering the fact that the alleged offences are said to have committed are triable by the Court of Session, committed the case to the District and Sessions Judge, Perabalur. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act, Perambalur taken the case on file in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2008. After completing formalities, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges as against the first appellant/A1 for the offence under Sections 342, 324 r/w 34, 506 (ii) IPC and 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act; as against the second appellant/A2 for the offences under Sections 324, 506(ii) IPC and 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST PoA Amendment Act; and as against the third appellant/A3 for the offences under Sections 324 r/w 34, 506(ii) IPC and 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) r/w 34 of SC/ST PoA Amendment Act.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, during trial, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 22 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW22 and 25 documents were marked as P1 to P25 and no Material Objects were marked.
Page No.5/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
6. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the materials available on record found that the offence under Sections 342 IPC, 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act (PoA) Act r/w 34 IPC and 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act are made out against A1; offence under Sections 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and Section 324 IPC are made out against A2; and offence under Sections 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 34 IPC and 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC are made against A3. A1 to A3 were acquitted of the charges under Section 506 (ii) IPC; and A2 and A3 were acquitted of the charges under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. For the above said charges, the Trial Court convicted the appellants/accused as mentioned herein:
(i) The first accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s.342 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s. 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to Page No.6/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 undergo further period of 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment.
(ii) The second accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence u/s 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
(iii) The third accused was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Sections 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PoA) Act r/w 34 IPC.
Page No.7/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
7. Challenging the above said judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act, Perambalur, the first accused has filed Crl.A.No.404 of 2022, second accused has filed Crl.A.No.371 of 2022 and third accused has filed Crl.A.No.960 of 2022. Since all the appeals are arising out of the same judgment, the appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that there was a delay in filing the complaint and also a delay in registering FIR, but no valid or acceptable reason was given by the prosecution for such inordinate delay, which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. There are material contradictions between the prosecution witnesses PW1, PW2, PW17, PW18, PW19, PW20 and PW21, which are not corroboratory with each other. As the prosecution has not proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt, the appellants are entitled for acquittal. Page No.8/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
9. The learned counsel would further submit that there is a contradictory evidence between PWs 1 and 2 when they made statements before Investigating Officer under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and when they deposed before the Trial Court. Even in the Accident Registers, which were marked as Exs.P21 and 22, pertains to PW2 and PW1 respectively, it has been specifically stated that assault was made by 4 known persons, whereas the case was registered only as against three persons and also there was a delay in filing the complaint and registering the case and even sending the same to the Court. The appellants have not committed any offence as stated by the defacto complainant. However, in order to escape from the contract work and to wreck vengeance against the first appellant for taking back the advance amount for not delivering their work, they had foisted the false case against the appellants.
10. Even from the entire material evidence, there is no overt act against the third accursed and none of the witnesses had spoken about the third accused and the allegations of assault and humiliation were made Page No.9/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 only against A1 and A2. The Trial Court failed to consider the contradictions and delay in filing the case and also failed to appreciate the fact that the contract labourers after obtaining advance amount, failed to do the contract work. Since the labourers failed to perform their work and when the same was questioned by the appellants, they foisted the false case against them. Even as per the evidence of PW19, who was the contractor, the first accused engaged the victims as contract labourers for cutting and loading the sugarcane. PW19 clearly deposed that when he came to know about the restraint of the workers, he visited the premises of the first accused and thereafter sent the Panchayatars to rescue them, but they also did not return. However an age old lady and 2 other persons were let off at initial stage. The evidence of PW19 amply clear that there was a dispute regarding non performance of contract work as per the agreement. But there was no complaint by any person, who were freed at the earlier stage at the instance of PW19 and they were regularly going to the field and returned to their house. Therefore, only after 08.03.2007, that is nearly after 30 days from the date of the alleged occurrence, the Page No.10/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 complaint was lodged. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is false. The false complaint was lodged by PW1 only to wreak vengeance against the first appellant for asking them to return the advance amount for non performance of the contract as agreed for cutting and loading of sugarcane. Further, the evidence of PWs1 and 2 do not prove the assault made on them in detail and the nature of the weapon, which was used to assault them, while admitting in the Hospital. The Doctor made an opinion that the said injury would have been caused in the other mode also. PW2 was treated only as an out-patient. Therefore, the prosecution has not proved the case as projected by them as against the appellants and the Trial Court also failed to appreciate the contradictions between PWs.2, 3, 4 and 5 regarding the locking of victims in the grain storage. Further, there was a contradiction between the evidence of PWs.1 and 6 regarding the manhandling by the appellants. PW6 also deposed that he only searched PW1 to find out the cellphone, but PW1 and 2 stated otherwise, which goes to the root of the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court appreciated the evidence and acquitted the accused for some Page No.11/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 of the charged offences as stated above. However, they are convicted only for some of the offences alone as stated above from the very same materials, which is against the settled proposition of law. Since the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt would have been extended to the appellants and they would have been acquitted from all the charges. Therefore, the judgment of the Trial Court is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside.
11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that all the victims are members of the Scheduled Caste Community and for their survival they went to do work in the sugarcane field of A1. PW19 arranged the said contract work in the sugarcane fields of the first accused. Due to dryness of the field and sugarcane, they could not reach the target. Therefore, they were humiliated and retained illegally by the first appellant and harassed them and they also went to the extent of physical torture. When PW19 heard the news, he came to the spot and pacify the matter and repaid the money and released the contract Page No.12/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 labourers. When PW1 was about to leave from that place, A2 created a drama as if he lost his cellphone and PW1 only would have stolen the same. Therefore, she was detained in a room and her saree, blouse and skirt were removed under the guise of searching the cellphone. Further, they humiliated the victims by scolding with their caste name. At that time, A3 was also present and he accompanied with other accused while committing the offence. Therefore, all the accused had committed the offence as charged above. The witnesses had clearly spoken about the incident and the injuries sustained by Pws.1 and 2 and their admission in the Hospital. The Accident Register clearly shows that they sustained injuries. Therefore, from the evidence of the victims, PW19 and PW20/Doctor, and the Accident Registers of PWs1 and 2, viz., Exs.P22 and P21, it is clear that PWs.1 and 2 sustained injury. From the evidence of PW1 and 2, it is clear that A1 and A2 had beaten them and caused injuries and they also humiliated them by uttering caste name. Exs.P3 to P20 would clearly show that the appellants belong to non members of the Scheduled Caste Community and the de-facto complainant and other Page No.13/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 victims belong to the members of the Scheduled Caste Community. Therefore, from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the documentary evidence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly found guilty of the appellants and convicted and sentenced them as stated above. There is no merit in the appeal and they are liable to be dismissed.
12. Admittedly, the prosecution by relying upon Exs.P3 to P20, which are community certificates of the victims and the appellants, proved that the appellants are non members of the Scheduled Caste Community and the victims belonged to the members of the Scheduled Caste Community. The evidence of PW19 clearly proved that PWs.1, 2 and other labourers went to the sugarcane field of A1 for cutting and loading of sugarcane. PW19 is the contractor, who arranged them, to do the work in the field of A1. From the evidence of PW.1, it is clear that since the sugarcane fields are not in a good condition, they could not cut and remove the sugarcane as to the satisfaction of A1. Even the other victims also expressed their inability to reach the norms due to the field Page No.14/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 condition. Further from the evidence of PWs.1 and 2, it is seen that the first accused retained the ladies in a separate room and others in his godown. Then, PW19 came to their rescue and subsequently, settled the dispute between them. When they were about to leave the place, at that time, A2 came into the picture stating that PW1 might have stolen his cellphone. Therefore, she was taken to a separate room and they went to the extent of removing all her clothes and scolded her uttering caste name and humiliated her. PW2 also corroborated the same. Though the other witnesses turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution, however, from the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 19, it is proved that all the victims went to the sugarcane field of A1 including PWs.1 and 2 for cutting sugarcane. These factors have not been denied by the appellants.
13. However, the main defence taken by the appellants are that since the contract labourers did not perform their work properly and when the same was questioned by the appellants and also got back the Page No.15/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 advance amount, PW1 foisted the false complaint against the appellants in order to escape from their liability. However, from the evidence of PWs.1 and PW19, it is clear that the sugarcane field was not properly maintained and the stage of the sugarcane is also beyond the period of harvest, and hence, they could not reach the norms fixed by A1. The contract labourers also expressed their difficulty to A1 and there was a dispute between A1 and the labourers. These facts have not been denied by any of the appellants. Therefore, it is admitted that the victims were engaged as contract labourers. Subsequently, the issue was settled between both the parties by PW19. However, the appellants did not want to leave the contract labourers, otherwise it is difficult for them to cut and load the sugarcane. Therefore, they staged a drama as if PW1 had stolen the cellphone and they took her to separate room and she was molested. The evidence of PW20/Doctor and Exs.P21 and P22, the Accident Registers of PWs.2 and 1, makes it is clear that the victims sustained injuries. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs.1, 2, 3, 19 and 20, the prosecution has proved its case against the accused. Therefore, Page No.16/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 this Court while reappreciating the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 9 and 20 and Exs.P1 to 22 came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
14. Under these circumstances, this Court, being an Appellate Court as a final Court of fact finding reappreciated the entire evidence independently finds that the appellants have committed the offence as stated above and the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and and convicted them. In a case of this nature, the delay in filing the complaint is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Since all the victims are suppressed class and the appellants belong to upper handed class, they threatened all the victims and went to the extent of beating and harassed them. Therefore, they cannot be expected to go to the police station immediately and even if they go, it is very difficult for them to get a relief from the police station and therefore, the delay in filing the complaint of this nature is not fatal to the case of the prosecution. Hence, this Court finds that there is no perversity in appreciation of evidence by Page No.17/19 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022 the Trial Court and the Trial Court rightly appreciated all the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and give the reasons for conviction. There is no merit in the appeals and hence, the appeals are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Spl.S.C.No.4 of 2008 dated 08.03.2022 by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST(PoA) Act, Perambalur is confirmed.
13.10.2022 Index: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order pvs To
1. Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST(PoA) Act, Perambalur
2. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Perambalur Circle, Maruvathur Police Station, Perambalur District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4.The Deputy Registrar | with a direction to send back the
(Criminal Section), | original records, if any, to the
High Court, Madras. | trial Court
Page No.18/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
pvs
Crl.A.Nos.371, 404 and 960 of 2022
13.10.2022
Page No.19/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis