Madras High Court
Kanagaraj vs State Rep. By on 10 October, 2025
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 24.09.2025
Pronounced on : 10.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023
Crl.A.(MD)No.573 of 2022
Kanagaraj ... Appellant/
P.W.1
Vs.
1.State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kovilpatti Sub Division,
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Tuticorin District.
(Crime No.106 of 2019) ... Respondent/
Complainant
2.Radha @ Rathakrishnan
3.Subburam
4.Velmurugan
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am )
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023
5.Ramar @ Ramakrishnan ... Respondents/
Accused Nos.1to4
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14(A) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, to call for records and set aside the judgment dated 15.12.2021
made in S.C.No.70 of 2020 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of
cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Thoothukudi as far as acquittal of the
accused under Section 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s),
3(l)(e) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 and convicted them under
Section 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s), 3(l)(e) and 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Suresh Kannan
for Mr.P.Banuprasath
For Respondents : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side) for R1
Mr.Ka.Raamakrishnan for R2 to R5
Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023
1.Radha @ Radhakrishnan
2.Subburam
3.Velmurugan
4.Ramar @ Ramakrishnan ... Appellants/
Accused 1 to 4
Vs.
2/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am )
Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023
1.State: through
Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Kovilpatti Sub Division,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kovilpatti West Police Station,
Kovilpatti,
Tuticorin District.
(Crime No.106 of 2019) ... Respondents/
Complainant
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, to admit this appeal on file and call for records from
the Lower Court namely the Learned Sessions Judge / Special Court for
SC/ST (PoA), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in S.C.No.70 of 2020
and to set aside the judgment passed in S.C.No.70 of 2020 on the file the
Learned Sessions Judge / Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) cases,
Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in S.C.No.70 of 2020 dated
15.12.2021 and thereby acquit the above accused from the charges.
For Appellants : Mr.Ka.Raamakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These two Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment passed in S.C.No.70 of 2020 dated 15.12.2021 on the file of the Special 3/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi, in which, criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.573 of 2022 is filed by the defacto complainant, challenging the acquittal of accused for certain offences, whereas, criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023 is filed by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant / P.W.1 residing at Manthithoppu Durasinga Nagar, belongs to Hindu Pallar community, that the first accused residing at Nalatinpudhur and the accused 3 and 4, who are brothers, residing at Manthithoppu Village, belong to Hindu Yadhavar community and the second accused residing at Kovilpatti, Pasuvanthanai main road, belongs to Hindu Vadukan community and that since the accused 1 to 4 had taken saral sand from kanmai without permission of the Government, there was enmity between the defacto complainant / P.W.1 and the accused. On 24.02.2019 at about 10.45 p.m., when the defacto complainant / P.W.1 was standing with his vehicle in Manthithoppu – Kurumalai Vilakku road, the accused came to that place, beaten him with hands and kicked him with their legs and 4/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 abused him in filthy language using his caste name and also threatened him that he would vacate and leave his village and they had also removed the dhoti worn by him and that thereby they had committed the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015.
3. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, had taken the case on file and furnished the copies of records under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on free of costs. In view of the constitution of a Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, the case was transferred and was taken on file in S.C.No.70 of 2020.
4. After appearance of the accused, the Special Court, on hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed charges under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s), 3(l)(e) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015 and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, they denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.
5/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023
5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.
6. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced on their side, in brief as follows:
(a) P.W.1-Kanagaraj / defacto complainant is residing at Manthithoppu Duraisinga Nagar of Kovilpatti and is doing agricultural work. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are residing at Manthithoppu Ganesh Nagar of Kovilpatti. On 24.02.2019 at about 10.45 p.m., when P.W.1 was proceeding towards his house from Kurumalai Vilakku, the accused came to that place and abused him in filthy language using caste name stating that he lodged a complaint before the Tahsildar and police, as if, they were taking sand and that they had kicked him with their legs and threatened to behave properly or else he would be killed and also removed dhoti worn by him. Some persons, who were waiting for the bus, on seeing the occurrence, started shouting and immediately, the accused left that place in two cars. P.W.1 then proceeded in his two wheeler and visited the Government Hospital, Kovilpatti. P.W.3 and P.W.4, who were present at the scene of occurrence, witnessed the occurrence.6/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023
(b) P.W.6-Doctor Venkatesh was on duty in Government Hospital and at about 11.20 p.m., P.W.1 came to the hospital alleging that he was attacked by four persons with hands and stick and on examination, P.W.6 found no external injuries but he treated P.W.1 as out-patient and certified that the injuries suffered by him is of simple in nature and issued accident register under Ex.P.2. P.W.1 since he was not able to write at the time of police enquiry, requested P.W.2 to help him in writing the complaint. P.W.10-the then Special Sub Inspector of Police received an injury intimation from Government Hospital, Kovilpatti and visited the hospital at about 00.30 hours on 25.02.2019 and received the written complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1. On returning to his station, P.W.10 registered a case in Crime No.106 of 2019 under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015 and prepared the FIR under Ex.P.9. He sent the original complaint and the FIR to the jurisdictional Court and copies to the higher officials and placed a copy before the Kovilpatti Sub Division Deputy Superintendent of Police.
(c) P.W.11-the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kovilpatti, as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi under Ex.P.10, took up the investigation and visited the occurrence place at 7/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 about 07.00 a.m. and prepared the observation mahazar under Ex.P.8 in the presence of P.W.5-Kanagaraj and one Periyasamy and also drew a rough sketch under Ex.P.11. He examined P.W.1 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.11 applied to the Tahsildars and obtained the community certificates of P.W.1 and the accused under Ex.P.3 to Ex.P.7 respectively. He examined P.W.6-medical officer, P.W.7 and P.W.8- Tahsildars and other witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing the investigation, he laid the final report on 10.05.2019 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015. With the examination of P.W.11, the prosecution has closed their side evidence.
7. When the accused were examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating aspects found against them in the evidence adduced by the prosecution, they denied the same as false and stated that a false case was foisted against them. They have also stated that they have no defence witnesses.
8. The learned Sessions Judge, upon considering the evidence both 8/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned judgment dated 15.12.2021 convicting all the accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month each and by holding that the accused were not guilty for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s), 3(l)(e) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015, acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC, all the accused have preferred the appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the accused for the remaining offences, the defacto complainant / P.W.1 has preferred the appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.573 of 2022.
9. Heard Mr.C.Suresh Kannan, learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant / P.W.1, Mr.Ka.Raamakrishnan, learned counsel appearing for the accused and Mr.K.Gnanasekaran, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant / 9/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 P.W.1 would submit that the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 clearly deposed that the defacto complainant / P.W.1 was abused by the accused with filthy language and threatened with dire consequences and that they have also deposed that the defacto complainant / P.W.1 was insulted by the accused by calling his caste name in the public view. He would further submit that the defacto complainant / P.W.1, in his evidence, has stated that the accused threatened him by saying that they would not leave without murdering him and they attacked him repeatedly and as such, it is very much clear that the accused created scared feeling and that therefore, the offence under Section 506(2) IPC can be taken as proved.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant / P.W.1 would further contend that the witnesses P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.5 made it clear that the occurrence had been taken place in public view but the trial Court has come to a wrong conclusion that the occurrence had not taken place in public view, that the defacto complainant / P.W.1 was assaulted in public view and he was insulted by the accused calling his caste name and they have also removed the defacto complainant / P.W.1's dhoti but the trial Court, by taking a lenient view, 10/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 convicted the accused only for the offence under Section 323 IPC and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/- though Section 323 IPC contemplates for a punishment for one year.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would submit that the alleged incident was occurred in night time and there is ample evidence to show that there was no light in the scene of occurrence and that nowhere it is found that the accused were identified. He would further submit that the evidence of P.W.1 do not find any specific overt act against the accused as who, how, in which body part was attacked and by which accused and the same was not explained by P.W.1, that P.W.6-medical officer has deposed that there are no external injuries but it is surprising as to how a wound certificate was issued stating that the injury is of simple in nature.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the accused would further submit that the accident register under Ex.P.2 was altered with time, place and manner of occurrence but the same was believed by the Court, that the version recorded in accident register of P.W.1 is totally different from the 11/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 manner of attack and that prayer of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1-complaint to seize JCB and tractors of the accused is totally irrelevant to the case on hand. He would further submit that P.W.2, who drafted the complaint, has not supported the case of the prosecution, that P.W.1 neither in his complaint nor in his evidence has stated that P.W.3 to P.W.5 were present in the scene of occurrence and witnessed the same, that though P.W.1 has stated that he was given in-patient treatment, P.W.6-medical officer has stated that P.W.1 was treated as out-patient and that the learned Sessions Judge, without considering the evidence in proper perspective, has proceeded to convict the accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC erroneously and the same is liable to be set aside.
14. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that the learned trial Judge, considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 and also the evidence of P.W.6- medical officer, has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 323 IPC and that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4 have got incriminating substance against the accused but the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the same and acquitted the accused for the remaining 12/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 offences and as such, that part of the acquittal judgment is liable to be interfered with.
15. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the evidence adduced would reveal that both the defacto complainant / P.W.1 as well as the accused were involved in taking of sand from water sources and appropriate action were taken against them. In Ex.P.1-complaint, P.W.1 has specifically stated that on 24.02.2019 at about 06.00 p.m., the date of occurrence he found that the accused were taking saral sand from Manthithoppu Kanmai with the help of two JCB and five tipper lorries and hence, he immediately informed the same to the District Superintendent of Police and Kovilpatti Tahsildar through cell phone and that thereafter by concealing the said vehicles, they have come in two cars at about 10.45 p.m. and attacked the defacto complainant / P.W.1. But P.W.1, in his chief examination, does not say anything about the incident occurred at 06.00 p.m. and the complaint lodged therefor. But according to the prosecution, the accused with the permission of the Government had taken sand on that day and hence, no action was taken against them. P.W.7-Tahsildar, who deposed about the issuance of community certificate for P.W.1, in cross- 13/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 examination would also say that the accused had obtained permission for taking sand in Manthithoppu kanmai and P.W.11-investigating officer would also admit that the accused had obtained necessary permission.
16. P.W.2, an alleged eyewitness, who wrote Ex.P.1-complaint as requested by P.W.1 and police, turned hostile, failing to support the case of the prosecution. But in chief examination, P.W.2 would say that both P.W.1 and the accused were involved in mineral robbery. P.W.1, in his cross- examination, would admit that his tractor was previously seized for unauthorized sand excavation. Considering the above, as rightly contended by the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), there existed prior enmity between the defacto complainant / P.W.1 and the accused regarding sand extraction from water sources.
17. The prosecution, apart from the defacto complainant / P.W.1, examined P.W.2 to P.W.5 as occurrence witnesses. It is pertinent to mention that, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, though defacto complainant / P.W.1 lodged a lengthy complaint under Ex.P.1, there was absolutely no reference to P.W.2 to P.W. 14/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 5 or any other persons, who were allegedly present and witnessed the occurrence. Moreover, P.W.1, in his chief examination, does not say that P.W.2 to P.W.5 were the eye witnesses. As already pointed out, P.W.2 has not supported the case of the prosecution and as such, he was treated as hostile. Despite cross examination of P.W.2, the prosecution has not elicited anything in their favour. P.W.2 would only say that as per the request of the police, he wrote the complaint for the defacto complainant / P.W.1.
18. Regarding P.W.3, he would say that he was taking his wife and daughter-in-law in an auto for hospital and at about 10.30 p.m., at Kurumalai Vilakku, he noticed that the accused were beating P.W.1 and so he got down from the auto and enquired and at that time, P.W.1 was abused by referring to his caste name and was kicked with and that since he shouted, the accused left that place. But in cross-examination, he would admit that his son Manikandan was earlier working as a driver under the third accused Velmurugan and there were disputes, as if, his son was stealing diesel. P.W.3, in his subsequent cross-examination, would admit that his daughter-in-law Uma Maheswari lodged a complaint against the 15/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 accused 3 and 4 with regard to the incident occurred on 24.02.2019 and on the basis of the complaint lodged by her, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.105 of 2019 and the same was pending. He would admit that he was shown as witness in the case registered in Crime No.105 of 2019 and after the said incident, he took his daughter-in-law to the hospital 2½ hours after the incident and claimed to have witnessed the present occurrence en route. When a specific question was put to him that the incident in connection with Crime No.105 of 2019 was also occurred at 10.30 p.m., he feigned ignorance. Given these admissions and contradictions, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, P.W.3's evidence appears false and potentially fabricated for the present case.
19. Now turning to other occurrence witness P.W.4, he would say that when he was returning after completing his paint work at about 10.45 p.m., he found that the accused were attacking P.W.1 at Kurumalai Vilakku and hence, he shouted at both the sides and thereafter, the accused left that place by taking their vehicle and that P.W.1 was proceeding without dhoti. P.W.4 during initial cross-examination would say that he 16/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 used to go to work by bicycle but on the date of occurrence, he went by bus and no one had accompanied him. More importantly, P.W.4 would admit that he is related to P.W.1. During subsequent cross-examination, P.W.4 would say that on the date of occurrence, he came by bicycle and others by bus and since no bus was available at that time, he has come by bicycle. He would admit that there were no electric lights in the occurrence street and that there was no light at the occurrence place. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, P.W.4 would say that he was not at all examined by the police and he was served with summons four days prior to his deposition made on 12.08.2021 and only at that time, the police examined him.
20. P.W.5, the other alleged occurrence witness would say that while he was returning from Kumarapuram on 24.02.2019 and at the place Manthithoppu Vilakku, he found that the accused were attacking P.W.1 and thereafter, P.W.1 informed that he was going to hospital. In cross- examination, he would say that he was sitting in an auto at that time but subsequently he would say that he was standing near the auto. In chief examination, he would say 17/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 “mth;fs; mbj;jhu;fs; ehd;
ghu;j;Jf;nfhz;bUe;Njd;. rpwpJ Neuj;jpy; M];gj;jpupf;F NghfpNwd; vd;W fdfuhI; Ngha;tpl;lhu;.”
21. But in cross-examination made on 12.08.2021, “ehd; Ml;Nlhtpy; mku;e;jpUe;Njd;. ... gpur;rid elf;Fk; NghJ ehd; ahuplKk; Ngha; NgrTk; ,y;iy ahUk; vd;dplKk; Ngrtpy;iy Ml;Nlhtpy; mUfpy;
epd;W nfhz;bUe;Njd;.”
22. During subsequent cross-examination, he would say, “rk;gtj;jd;W rk;gt Neuj;jpy; ehd; ke;jpNjhg;G NuhL topahf ehd; Ml;Nlhtpy; te;J nfhz;bUe;Njd;. ehd; Ngha; ghu;f;Fk; NghJ Ml;fs; $l;lkhf ,Ue;jJ. ehd; gf;fj;jpy; 20 kPl;lu; J}uj;jpy; ,Ue;J ghu;j;Njd;.”
23. Considering the evidence of P.W.5, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, whether P.W.5 was really present at the scene of occurrence and witnessed the same appears doubtful, rendering his testimony questionable.
24. Given that P.W.3 to P.W.5 were not named in Ex.P.1-complaint 18/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 or P.W.1's chief examination and taking note of the testimonies of P.W.3 to P.W.5 along side P.W.1's evidence, the prosecution's alleged genesis of the occurrence appears, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, false and doubtful.
25. Regarding the offence under Section 294(b) IPC, P.W.1, in his evidence, would say that the accused have abused him in filthy language using the words“NjtbahktNd”but as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, the same does not find place in Ex.P.1-complaint. Moreover, the alleged occurrence witnesses P.W.3 to P.W.5 does not say anything about the alleged abusing in filthy words.
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.S.Madhanagopal and others Vs. K.Lalitha reported in MANU/SC/1805/2022 has specifically held that mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“7.Section 294(b) of the IPC talks about the obscene acts and songs. Section 294 of the IPC as a whole reads thus:19/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 "294.Obscene acts and songs - Whoever, to the annoyance of others -
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both."
8.It is to be noted that the test of obscenity under Section 294(b) of the I.P.C. is whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences. The following passage from the judgment authored by Justice K.K. Mathew (as his Lordship then was) reported in P.T. Chacko v. Nainan (1967 KLT 799) explains as follows:
“The only point argued was that the 1st accused has not committed an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC., by uttering the words above-mentioned. The courts below have held that the words uttered were obscene and the utterance caused annoyance to the public. I am not inclined to take this view. In the Queen v. Hicklin, [L.R.] 3 Q.B. 360 at 371 Cockburn C.J. Laid down the test of ‘obscenity’ in these words:
“……. the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to 20/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences” This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881. In Samuel Roth v. U.S.A., 354 US 476 (1957), Chief Justice Warren said that the test of ‘obscenity’ is the “substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires”. Mr. Justice Harlan observed that in order to be ‘obscene’ the matter must “tend to sexually impure thoughts”. I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are ‘obscene’ and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under Section 294(b) IPC”.
9.It has to be noted that in the instance case, the absence of words which will involve some lascivious elements arousing sexual thoughts or feelings or words cannot attract the offence under Section 294(b). None of the records disclose the alleged words used by the accused. It may not be the requirement of law to reproduce in all cases the entire obscene words if it is lengthy, but in the instant case, there is hardly anything on record. Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot 21/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellants accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is made out.”
27. It is also necessary to refer the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Latheef Vs. State of Kerala reported in 2014 (2) KLT 987, wherein also, it has been held that abusive words or humiliating words or defamatory words will not as such amount to obscenity as envisaged in Section 292 and 294(b) IPC and that to make it punishable under Section 294(b) IPC, the alleged words must be in a sense lascivious, or it must be appeal to the prurient interest, or will deprave or corrupt persons.
28. Even assuming the accused uttered abusive or filthy words, there is no evidence that they caused annoyance to other. The prosecution has not elaborated that the witnesses felt annoyed. Considering the above, 22/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 this Court has no hesitation to hold that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294(b) IPC are not made out.
29. Regarding the offence under Section 506(2) IPC, P.W.1, in his evidence, would say that the accused threatened to kill him, if he did not behave, contradicting Ex.P.1-complaint, which stated that the threat was to vacate and leave the village. P.W.3 to P.W.5, alleged occurrence witnesses did not corroborate that P.W.1 was criminally intimidated. The prosecution, in order to attract the offence under Section 506 IPC, must prove (i) that the accused threatened some person, (ii) that such threat consisted of some injury to his person, reputation or property; or to the person, reputation or property of someone in whom he was interested and
(iii) that he did so with intent to cause alarm to that person; or to cause that person to do any act which he was not legally bound to do, or omit to do any act which he was legally entitled to do as a means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
30. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another reported in 2015 7 SCC 423, 23/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023
11. Section 506 IPC prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. "Criminal intimidation" as defined in Section 503 IPC is as under:-
"503. Criminal Intimidation.- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation.- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section."
A reading of the definition of "Criminal intimidation"
would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
12. In the instant case, the allegation is that the appellants have abused the complainant and obstructed the second respondent from discharging his public duties and 24/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 spoiled the integrity of the second respondent. It is the intention of the accused that has to be considered in deciding as to whether what he has stated comes within the meaning of "Criminal intimidation". The threat must be with intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this section. But material has to be placed on record to show that the intention is to cause alarm to the complainant. From the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no intention on the part of the appellants to cause alarm in the minds of the second respondent causing obstruction in discharge of his duty. As far as the comments posted on the Facebook are concerned, it appears that it is a public forum meant for helping the public and the act of appellants posting a comment on the Facebook may not attract ingredients of criminal intimidation in Section 503 IPC.”
31. In the case on hand, P.W.1 did not claim to have felt criminally intimidated by the accused's alleged threats. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, there is absolutely no materials to suggest the threats given by the accused are real or substantial. Hence, this Court concludes that the ingredients of the offence under Section 25/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 506(2) IPC are not established.
32. The accused were charged under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(e), and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. These sections penalize intentional insults, intimidation, and humiliation of SC/ST members in public view. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the accused, there is no evidence the accused knew P.W.1's caste or intended to humiliate him. Additionally, there is no evidence of remarks being made in public view. Given this, the charges under these sections appear unsustainable.
33. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the defacto complainant / P.W.1, P.W.1 would testify that the accused stripped off his dhoti. However, lacking corroborative evidence and given the doubtful presence of P.W.3 to P.W.5 at the scene, this claim's credibility is questionable.
34. P.W.1, in his complaint and evidence would say that bystanders waiting for a bus intervened, shouting at the accused, who then left. However, apart from P.W.2 to P.W.5, the prosecution has not identified or 26/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 examined any other witnesses who allegedly witnessed the incident.
35. Considering the offence under Section 323 IPC, P.W.1 claimed to have suffered contusions, but P.W.6, the medical officer, found no external injuries. The medical officer would testify that stick attacks typically cause injuries and that false complaints of pain are possible. Notably, P.W.6 did not observe any contusions, and P.W.1 did not mention experiencing pain due to the attack in his statement to P.W.6. Furthermore, P.W.1's evidence stating he was kicked by the accused contradicts his earlier statement that he was attacked with hands and sticks. Given the lack of evidence on injuries or pain and the material contradictions in the evidence regarding the attack, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 323 IPC. The learned trial Judge, without considering these aspects in proper perspective, proceeded to record a conviction for the said offence, which is liable to be set aside.
36. Considering the evidence on record and the doubts surrounding the occurrence itself, this Court finds no fault with the trial Judge's 27/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 conclusion that the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(2) IPC and the SC/ST (PoA) Act are not established. Consequently, Crl.A.(MD)No.573 of 2022 lacks merit and is dismissed. However, Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023 is allowed, and the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC are set aside.
37. In the result, the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.573 of 2022 is dismissed and the Criminal Appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023 is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi in S.C.No.70 of 2020, dated 15.12.2021 is set aside. The appellants in Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023 are not found guilty for the offence under Section 323 IPC and acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled and sureties, if any, shall be discharged. Fine amount if any paid, shall be refunded to the appellants in Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023.
10.10.2025 NCC :yes/No Index :yes/No Internet:yes/No csm 28/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 To
1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kovilpatti Sub Division, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Tuticorin District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Kovilpatti West Police Station, Kovilpatti, Tuticorin District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
29/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am ) Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm Pre-Delivery Common Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)Nos.573 of 2022 and 79 of 2023 Dated : 10.10.2025 30/30 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/10/2025 11:33:36 am )