Madras High Court
K.Pookadai Rani vs State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent ... on 27 February, 2024
Crl.A.No.744 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 27.02.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI
Crl.A.No.744 of 2016
1. K.Pookadai Rani
2. K.Sarasu ... Appellants
Versus
State rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kallakurichi Sub-Division,
Villupuram District.
Crime No.848/2012 of Kallakurichi P.S. ... Respondent
Prayer : Criminal Appeal is filed u/s.374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
praying to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants by
the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusive trial of cases registered
under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities)
Act, 1989 Villupuram in Special S.C.No.228 of 2015 dated 13.10.2016.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Munusamy
For Respondent : Mr.S.Udaya Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the conviction and sentence passed in Special S.C.No.228 of 2015 on the file of Special Court for exclusive trial of cases registered under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 Villupuram dated 13.10.2016.
a) Details of the accused, and
residence 1) K.Pookadai Rani,
: aged 48 years,W/o.Krishnan
2) K.Sarasu,
aged 30 years, D/o Krishnan
Both the accused are residing at
Kottaimedu, Kallakurichi.
b) Date of commission of the offence : 12.09.2012
c) Name of the complainant State through The Deputy Superintendent
: of Police, Kallakurichi Police Station.
(Crime No.848 of 2012)
d) Charges against the accused
(offences complained of) A1 and A2 : Section 323 of The Indian Penal
: Code, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(x) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
A1 : Section 506 (i) of the Indian Penal Code,
1860
e) Plea of the accused Pleader not guilty
:
2. The case of the prosecution is stated in brief:
i. De-facto complainant Parvathi belongs to Scheduled Caste and the accused 1 and 2 belong to non-Scheduled Caste Community.
ii. On 12.09.2012, at 6:00 pm, while the de-facto complainant was going to the house of Shankar to whom she sold her house, the first and second accused scolded and bet her.
iii. On 14.09.2012, at 10:00 am she went to the house of Shankar as https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 mentioned above to take the old doors and door frames.
iv. The first accused abused her by caste name ''gwnjtpoah'' and by showing the wooden log made threat to the complainant that she would kill her.
The second accused abused the de-facto complainant by caste name ''gwnjtpoah'' and slapped on her cheek and caused simple injury. The second accused also made a threat to cause death.
v. The above said offences are punishable under u/s.294 (b), 323 and 506
(i) of the I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
3. Mr.C.Munusamy, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 / accused Nos. 1 and 2 vehemently contended that the complaint was lodged on 14.09.2012 : but the treatment record of the de-facto complainant, Ex.P6 is dated 12.09.2012 : the said discrepancy was not taken into account by the Trial Court : it is his further argument that as per the case of prosecution, P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.8 are the ocular witnesses: even as per the evidence of ocular witnesses, charges cannot be considered to have been proved. He also drew the attention of this Court as to the details of the cross examination of investigation officer (P.W.11) : it is the specific answer of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 P.W.11 / investigating officer ''…,uz;lhtJ rk;gtj[;jpw;F P.W.1 kUj;Jtkidf;F bry;ytpy;iy'' and pleaded to allow the appeal.
4. Whereas, Mr.S.Udaya Kumar, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strenuously argued that in consonance with the charges, the de-facto complainant / P.W.1, independent witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.8 have spoken about the occurrence in clear terms. The learned Government Advocate would further contend that P.W.5 and 6 have spoken about the preparation of Observation Mahazar : with regard to the charge under Section 506 (i) of Indian Penal Code. P.W.4 has spoken about the criminal intimidation made by the first accused and pleaded to dismiss the appeal.
5. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined eleven (11) witnesses and marked nine (9) documents. No witness was examined on the defence side.
6. P.W.1 Parvathi is the de-facto complainant herein. P.W.2 Balamurugan is the son of P.W.1/Parvathi. P.W.3 Sekar and P.W.5 Gunasekaran did not support the prosecution case. P.W.4 Sarala and P.W.8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 Indira are ocular witnesses / independent witnesses. P.W.6 Yogananthan is the Observation Mahazar witness. P.W.7 Thiru.Balasingam, Sub-Inspector of Police of Kallakurichi Police Station. P.W.9 Thiru.Moorthy is the Revenue Official through whom Ex.P.5 – letter issued by the Tahsildar, Kallakurichi as regards the community details of P.W.1 and accused 1 and 2. P.W.10 Dr. Pazhamalai, who gave treatment to P.W.1 and issued accident register for the same (Ex.P.6). P.W.11 Thiru.Saravanakumar is the investigation officer.
7. Among the above said witnesses P.W.4 and P.W.8 have supported the case of the prosecution.
8. It is the evidence of P.W.1 Parvathi / de-facto complainant that she belongs to Adi Dravidar Community and before three (3) years, she sold her house to one Shankar. She went to the house to take back her articles. Accused 1 and 2 at about 7:00 pm abused her in filthy language. It is her further evidence that after two days at about 10:00 am, when she went to the house of Shankar in order to bring back her articles. Accused No.2 abused her by caste name '' …gwnjtpoah tPl;il tpw;Wtpl;L Vd; tuntz;Lk; '' and slapped her on her cheek. The first accused, chased her with stick. It is her further evidence https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 that the occurrence was intervened by Sekar, Sarala and Indira and the accused abused the said persons also. She was taken to Kallakurichi Government Hospital by her son and she was under treatment for two days.
9. With regard to the preparation of complaint it is her evidence that on her narration, another person wrote the complaint (Ex.P.1). During her cross examination, when she was questioned that on what date she lodged the complaint she has answered that after she was assaulted immediately she lodged complaint.
10. The son of P.W.1 is Balamurugan P.W.2. It is his evidence that before three years when he came home from his work, he found his mother was crying and he was told that accused assaulted his mother and he took his mother to the Kallakurichi Hospital and she was under treatment for two days in the said hospital.
11. It has come on record through the evidence of Sarala P.W.4 that three years before at about evening 5:00 pm, there was a quarrel between P.W.1 and the first accused. P.W.1 kept quiet. After two days at about 10 am, when P.W.1 went to the house of Sekar to take her household articles, accused 1 and 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 abused her by caste name ''…gwnjtpoah cdf;F ,';F vd;d ntiy''. When P.W.1 asked them why they were shouting at her, for which the second accused slapped her on her cheek. The first accused by holding the wooden log chased her and criminally intimidated her by stating that she would kill her.
12. From the cross examination of P.W.4 it is inferable that with regard to the plot, often the family of P.W.1 and first accused used to quarrel with each other. After the occurrence, at about 10 am, P.W.1, went to the hospital. The occurrence held in front of her house.
13. Another ocular witness P.W.8 Indira would state that three years before she does not remember the time and P.W.1 Parvathi was sitting in front of her house. The accused went and abused Parvathi. It is her further evidence that in turn Parvathi abused the accused. They quarreled with each other and P.W.1 was assaulted by the accused 1 and 2. The accused 1 and 2 abused P.W.1 by caste name.
14. P.W.4 and 8 belong to non Scheduled Caste Community. No enemity was suggested by the accused side to P.W.4 and 8. They have withstood the cross examination effectively.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016
15. Through the evidence of P.W.9 Thiru.Moorthy, the then Tahsildar of Kallakurichi, Ex.P.5 report was issued by him to the effect that the victim belongs to Valluvar community and accused Pookadai Rani and Sarasu belong to Hindu Agamudayar Community.
16. It has come on record through the evidence of P.W.10 Dr.Pazhamalai coupled with accident register Ex.P.6, that on 12.09.2012 at about 10:30 pm, P.W.1 Parvathi was taken to Kallakurichi Government Hospital by her son Balamurugan. On enquiry, P.W.1 has stated that she was assaulted by known two persons on the same day at about 7 pm, in front of her house by stone. The following injuries were sustained by P.W.1 :
1. A contusion measuring 3 x 2 c.m. in the center part of the head,
2. Another contusion measuring 4 x 3 c.m. on her left cheek,
3. Complainrd of pain all over the body.
17. P.W.10 Dr.Pazhamalai has opined that these injuries are possible as stated by her. Accident register copy is Ex.P.6.
18. The foremost point is that whether the investigation officer was https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 appointed by his higher official in compliance with Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. It is the evidence of P.W.11 Thiru.Saravanakumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police of Kallakurichi that on 14.09.2012 he was appointed as investigation officerin Crime No.848 of 2012 of Kallakurichi Police Station u/s.294 (b), 323 and 506
(i) of the I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The proceedings of the Superintendent of Police Villupuram is Ex.P.7.
19. P.W.11 took up the case for investigation and on the same day at about 15.00 hours went to the place of occurrence and inspected the same in the presence of witnesses Yogananthan and Gunasekaran and prepared Observation Mahazar / Ex.P.8 and rough sketch / Ex.P.9. Witnesses Parvathi, her son Balamurugan, Sekar, Sarala and Indira were examined at the place of occurrence and recorded their statements. Accused No.1 was arrested on 27.09.2012 and sent for judicial custody. He sent a requisition to the District Revenue Officer in order to obtain the Community Certificate for the de-facto complainant and for the accused 1 and 2. After examining the Medical Officer, he completed his investigation and laid a final report against the accused 1 and 2 u/s. 294 (b), 323 and 506 (i) of the I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. During the cross examination of investigation officer he would state that in the complaint, there is no mention about the first date i.e., on 12.09.2012. It is also his evidence that as regards the occurrence dated 12.09.2012, no complaint was given.
20. On perusal of Ex.P.1 complaint, it appears that it was given on the date of occurrence. The case was registered by 2:00 pm on the same day in Crime No.848 of 2012 u/s.294 (b), 323 and 506 (i) of the I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
21. From the holistic perusal of evidence of ocular witnesses and the case records, it is discernible that the de-facto complainant Parvathi who belongs to Valluvar Community, sold her plot with house to one Shankar. When she went to the house of Shankar in order to bring the articles, she was abused by the accused.
22. Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is extracted hereunder:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016
3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
23. As per Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, if the person who does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intention utters words thereby, the person who belong to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is insulted or intimidated with an intention to humiliate the person, is an offence under the said provision.
24. The complaint details are extracted hereunder for proper appreciation:
”mDg;g[jy;
ghh;tjp (taJ 42) f-bg/ Re;juK:h;j;jp nfhl;ilnkL fs;sf;Fwpr;rp/ bgWjy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 cah;jpU cjtp Ma;thsh; mth;fs;
fhty;epiyak;
fs;sf;Fwpr;rp/ ma;ah.
ehd; nkny cs;s Kfthpapy; trpj;J
tUfpnwd;/ vdf;F brhe;jkhd ,lj;jpid
tpw;Wtpl;L gf;fj;J bjUtpw;F Fote;Jtpl;nld;/
ehd; tpw;w ,lj;jpid th';fpath; ,oj;J mjpy;
cs;s fjt[ kw;Wk; mUfhy; cs;spl;l bghUl;fis
vd;id vLj;Jf;bfhs;Sk;go Twpajd; nghpy; ehd;
,d;W 14/9/12 fhiy 10 kzpf;F nkw;go
bghUl;fis vLf;f brd;nwd;/ mg;nghJ
nfhl;ilnkL bjUtpy; cs;s g{ff
; il uhdp
vd;gtUk;. MtuJ kfs; ruR vd;gtUk; ehd;
tUtijg; ghh;j;J mrp';fkhf gwj;njtpoah
tuhg;ghU ,lj;ij tpw;w gpwFk; ,t Vd; ,';f
tUfpwhs; vd jpl;oaij ghh;j;J vdf;Fk; cdf;Fk;
ve;jtpj gpur;rida[k; ,y;iyna vd;id Vd;
jpl;Lfpwha; vd nfl;Lf; bfhz;L ,Uf;Fk; nghnj
vd;d njtpoah vd;id vjph;j;J ngRfpwha;. gwr;rp ehap cd;id bjhiyr;rpfl;lhk tplkhl;nld;o vd vd; fd;dj;jpy; moj;J mUfpy; fple;j fl;ilia vLj;J cd;id bjhiyr;rpfl;lhk tplkhl;nld;o vd Juj;jpte;jhh;/ clnd m';F gf;fj;jpy; ,Ue;j nrfh;. rush kw;Wk; ,e;jpuh Mfpnahh;fs; jLj;J vd;id fhg;ghw;wpdhh;fs;/ Mifahy; fdk; ma;ah mth;fs; nkw;go.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 egh;fs; kPJ eltof;if vLf;FkhW nfl;L bfhs;fpnwd;/ ,g;gof;F. ghh;tjp/ fs;sf;Fwpr;rp/ 14-09-17/ ma;ah/ ,d;W 14/9/2012k; njjp 14/00 kzp fhty; cjtp Ma;thsh; R/ghyrp';fk; Mfpa ehd; epiyaj;jpy; m$hpy; ,Ue;j nghJ fs;sf;Fwpr;rp nfhl;ilnkLj; bjUitr; nrh;e;j Re;juK:h;j;jp kidtp ghh;tjp
vd;gth; epiyak; M$uhfp bfhLj;j g[fhh; kDitg; bgw;W epiya F/vz;/848/12 u/s 294 (b), 323, 506 (1) r/w 3 (1) (x) of SC-ST Act?d; go tHf;F gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;lJ/ Sd/-..
14-09-2012”
25. From the evidence of P.W.4 Sarala it appears that often P.W.1 and the first accused used to quarrel with each other.
26. From a careful perusal of entire evidence coupled with records, it appears that, the occurrence took place in front of the house of P.W.4 Sarala. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 13/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 The words within public view found in Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 means that the public must have viewed the person being insulted.
27. This Court in Mariammal V. State of Tamil Nadu reported in 1998 (1) MWN (Cr.(349).
(i) Sambasivam and anr. v. State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2007 (1) MLJ (Crl) 654.
(ii) Viswanadhula Chittibabu v. State of A.P. reported in 2002 (4) ALR (iii) V.P.Kuppurao v. Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu Government DGP Office reported in 2010 1 MLJ (Crl) 247
(iv) Athimula Gounder and another v. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police
(v) Chengee Taluk reported in 2006 2 MLJ (Crl) 256
(vi) H.Thenmozhi v. Inspector of Police P.R.C.Unit, St.Thomas Mount Police Station, Chennai and anr. reported in 2 M.L.J. (Crl) 463
(vii) Thangarasu and another v. State reported in 2010 CRI.L.J.1299
(viii) Venkatesan @ Venkateswaran and 13 others v. State rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police Gudiyatham, Vellore District and another https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 14/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 in Crl.O.P.No.4849 of 2010 dated 15.11.2012. It was held that in non- compliance of Rule 7(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 is fatal to the prosecution case.
28. It is the candid evidence of the Investigating Officer P.W.11 that the complaint doesn't spell out about the occurrence which took place on 12.09.2012. P.W.10 Dr.Pazhamalai has stated that the de-facto complainant was treated by him on 12.09.2012. The evidence of P.W.10 Dr.Pazhamalai and Ex.P.6 accident register have to be ignored and thereby the said portion of evidence are not taken into consideration. Therefore, the first charge which is framed against both the accused u/s.323 of Indian Penal Code need to be taken into consideration.
29. As regards the charge u/s.3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, P.W.1 has stated that she was abused by the accused name by the second accused. P.W.1 has not stated anything against the first accused in consonance with the said charge.
30. P.W.4 Sarala has given an omnibus statement. P.W.8 Indira has not spoken in specific terms about the abusive language spoke by the accused. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 15/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016
31. The de-facto complainant P.W.1 has in particular stated that besides abusing her by caste name, the second accused slapped her on her cheek, which was corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4 Sarala.
32. The charge u/s. 506 (i) of the I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is framed against the first accused. P.W.1 has stated, that the first accused chased her with stick. Therefore, based on the said discussions it is concluded that the charges u/s. 323 and 506 (i) of the I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as against A1 are not proved by the prosecution beyond any reasonable doubt. The charges as against second accused u/s. 323 of the I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution.
33. In fine Accused No.1 is found not guilty u/s. 323 and 506 (i) of the I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and ordered to be acquitted u/s.235(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure. In result the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 16/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016
34. As regards the second accused is concerned, the judgment and conviction passed u/s. 323 of I.P.C r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stands confirmed.
35. After the appeal time is over, the Trial Court is directed to return the fine amount and the bail bond executed by Accused No.1 stands cancelled. The Trial Court is directed to secure Accused No.2 and commit her to prison for serving the sentence imposed by the Trial Court within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. The sentence period already undergone shall be set off.
27.02.2024 Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order rap Note: Registry is directed to send the original records to the Trial Court forthwith.
R.KALAIMATHI, J., RAP https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 17/18 Crl.A.No.744 of 2016 To
1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court, Villupuram.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Kallakurichi Police Station, Villupuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
Crl.A.No.744 of 2016
27.02.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/18