Madras High Court
Lakshmanan vs State Represented By on 16 March, 2018
Author: R. Tharani
Bench: R. Tharani
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 16/03/2018
RESERVED ON: 24.02.2018
DELIVERED ON : 16.03.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
Crl. A.(MD)No.486 of 2007
1.Lakshmanan
2.K.Kaliyappan
3.M.Nagaraj .. Appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3
Vs.
State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Rajapalayam,
Keelarajakularaman Village,
Police Station.
Crime No.67 of 2001 .. Respondent
Prayer : This appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code,
against the order passed in S.C.No.114 of 2002 dated 28.06.2007 on the file
of the III Additional District Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Madurai.
!For Appellant : Mr.D.Saravanan
^For Respondent : Mr.Robinson
Government Advocate
:JUDGMENT
This appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in S.C.No.114 of 2002 dated 28.06.2007 on the file of the III Additional District Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Madurai.
2.The Trial Court found A1 guilty under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and under Section 355 of IPC and found A2 guilty under Section 324 (2 counts) IPC and found A3 guilty under Section 323 of IPC.
3.The following sentence was imposed upon the appellants:-
The first appellant was convicted under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment and convicted under Section 355 of IPC and was sentenced to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment the second appellant/A2 was found guilty of the offence under Section 324 (two counts) IPC and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each counts in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment (each case). The third appellant/A3 was convicted for the offence under Section 323 IPC and convicted and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment.
4.The Deputy Superintendent of Police has filed charge sheet against A1 to A3 stating that on 02.04.2001, at about 09.00 p.m., at Thombakulam Village infront of the community hall within the jurisdiction of Keelarajakularaman Police Station, A1 to A3 scolded the witness using the community name and assaulted them with chappel, aruval and hands and had committed offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 355 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act.
5.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the trial Court failed to consider that there was no independent witness and all the witness, who were examined by the prosecution, are relatives. It is further argued that A1 has attacked P.W.1 with chappels upon his head and that P.W.6, Dr.Sakthivel deposed that P.W.1 came for treatment on 03.04.2001 at about 09.15 p.m., and that he has stated that he was attacked with chappel and aruval and he is having pain on the back side of the neck. It is further stated that P.W.6 deposed that the statement of P.W.1 regarding the pain in the neck may be a false statement and hence offence against A1 was not proved by the prosecution.
6.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that the evidence of P.W.1 co-relates the version of P.W.2 wherein, P.W.2 has deposed that A1, Lakshmanan attacked P.W.1 with chappel. Evidence of P.W.3, Krishnan co- relates the evidence of P.W.1 wherein he has stated that A1 attacked P.W.1 with chappel upon his head.
7.A perusal of the records reveals that the evidence P.W.1 to 3 and the evidence of P.W.6 co-relates regarding the usage of chappels and thereby, the evidence against A1 under Section 355 IPC is proved by the prosecution.
8.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that A2 attacked P.W.1 and P.W.2 with aruval and caused injuries. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the offence under Section 324 IPC against A2 is not proved by the prosecution. P.W.1 and P.W.2 had deposed that A2 had attacked them with aruval and caused injuries on their right hands.
9.Evidence of P.W.1 to 3 co-relates each other. Regarding the usage of aruval, it is stated that A2 caused injuries to P.W.1 and 2 with aruval. The evidence P.W.6 co-relates the evidence P.W.1 and Ex.A.3 and 4 reveals that there were injuries on the right hand of the P.W.1 and 2.
10.On the side of the appellant, it is argued that P.W.6 had deposed that these injuries might have been caused due to agriculture works. Since the evidence P.W.1 to 3 and the evidence of P.W.6 and Ex.A.3 and 4 co-relates each other, it is clear that A2 attacked P.W.1 and 2 with aruval and caused minor injuries. Hence, the finding of the trial Court that A2 is liable to be punished under Section 324 IPC is sustainable.
11.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the conviction of A3 under Section 323 IPC is unsustainable, as all the witnesses are relatives and no independent witnesses were examined. P.W.1 had deposed that A3 attacked him with hand on his head. The occurrence was near the community hall and there may not be independent witnesses. Evidence of P.W.2 co-relates the evidence of P.W.1. Hence the conviction given by the trial Court is correct and there is no need to interfere with the judgment of the lower Court.
11.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the trial Court has erred in convicting A1 under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. It is stated that there a quarrel regarding the theft of hose pipes at the lands of Varadaraja Naicker who suspected that these accused might have stolen them and due to this he had some ill feelings and foisted false case by using P.W.1 to P.W.3 who were working in his lands.
12.On the side of the prosecution, it is stated that prosecution has proved the case. P.W.7 to P.W.9 were examined and community Certificates, Exs.A 5 to 10 were marked. A perusal of the records reveals that there is absolutely no enmity between the witness and the accused.
13.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that P.W.1 has admitted in his cross-examination that Varadaraja Naicker has some enmity against the accused.
P.W.2 deposed that ?vdf;Fk; vjpupf;Fk; jdpgl;l tpNuhjk; ,y;iy?.
14.P.W.1 has further deposed that there is dispute between Varadaraja Naicker and the accused. P.W.10 has deposed that he did not examine Varadaraja Naicker. Hence, the original dispute were between Varadaraja Naicker and the accused and it is the duty of the prosecution to examine Varadaraja Naicker, non examination of Varadaraja Naicker is factual to the prosecution.
15.For the offence under Section 310 of SC/ST Act, there must be ?intentional insult or intimate with intent to humiliate a member of a SC/ST in any place within public view?.
16.From the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 it is clear that the place of occurrence is a common hall which belongs to SC/ST community. P.W.1 to 3 had deposed that the place of occurrence was infront of the community hall. Hence, there may not be a chance for public to have witnessed the alleged humiliation which might have been caused to the witness. Admittedly, P.W.1 to 3 are relatives and they belong to the same community. No independent witness were examined by the prosecution to prove that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were humiliated by A1 by using the caste name.
17.In these circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove that P.W.1 to P.W.3 were humiliated by A1 by using their caste name. Hence decision of the trial Court regarding the conviction of A1 under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act is incorrect and this offence against A1 is not properly proved by the prosecution. Hence, the trial Court judgment is to be modified and the conviction against A1 under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act has to be set aside and conviction of A1 to A3 under Sections 353, 324 (2 counts) and 323 IPC respectively has to be confirmed.
18.Therefore, the conviction of appellant/A1 for the offences under Section 355 of IPC and sentence to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one months simple imprisonment and conviction of the second appellant/A2 under Section 324 (two counts) IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each counts in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment (each case) and the conviction of the third appellant/A3 for the offence under Section 323 IPC and the sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment is hereby confirmed.A1 is acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and the fine amount paid by him under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act is to be refunded to him. Hence, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. No Costs.
To The learned III Additional District Sessions Judge (P.C.R.), Madurai.
.