Kerala High Court
Renjith M.T vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI
THURSDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2020 / 3RD MAGHA, 1941
CRL.A.No.1278 OF 2019
AGAINST CRMC 1684/2019 DATED 30-10-2019 OF SESSIONS
COURT,THALASSERY
APPELLANT/ACCUSED:
RENJITH M.T
AGED 33 YEARS
S/O.RAGHAVAN, PADINHAREMOOLA, CHUZHALI.P.O, KANNUR
DISTRICT
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.SASINDRAN
SRI.P.K.SUBHASH
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:
1. STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031
ADDL R2. KANNAN.K, S/O.SANKARAN, AGED 59 YEARS,
KALLAKUDIAN HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM,
PADINHAREMOOLA, KANNUR DISTRICT
Addl.second respondent is impleaded as per order
dated 13.11.2019 in Crl.M.A.No.01/2019)
SRI AJITH MURALI-PP
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
21.01.2020, THE COURT ON 23.01.2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.A.No.1278/2019
2
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J
************************
Crl.A.No.1278 of 2019
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2020
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
2. The appellant is the sole accused in the case registered as Crime No.490/2019 of the Sreekandapuram police station under Sections 341, 324 and 326 I.P.C and Sections 3(1)
(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Act.
3. The case diary reveals that the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(s) of the Act was subsequently deleted.
4. The case against the appellant was registered on the basis of the first information statement given to the police by the additional second respondent, who is the de facto complainant. Crl.A.No.1278/2019 3 The material averments in the aforesaid statement are as follows: On 12.09.2019, at about 16.00 hours, the de facto complainant went to the shop conducted by one Murali for purchasing goods. At that time, the shop was closed. The de facto complainant sat on a chair at the verandha of the shop. The appellant/accused was sitting on another chair at the verandha of the shop. Then, the accused called the de facto complainant by his caste name and caught hold of the collar of his shirt. When the de facto complainant removed the hand of the accused from the collar of his shirt, the accused took a stone and hit him with it aiming the blow on the head. However, the blow with the stone fell on the shoulder of the de facto complainant causing fracture to the bone of the shoulder. The stone was broken into two pieces. Then, the accused hit on the head of the de facto complainant with a piece of the stone. The accused is not a member of a scheduled caste. The de facto complainant is a member of a scheduled caste.
5. The appellant/accused filed an application for Crl.A.No.1278/2019 4 anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C before the Court of Session, Thalassery. As per the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the aforesaid application holding that it is a case where the de facto complainant has sustained grievous injury and that there is bar under Section 18A of the Act in granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned Public Prosecutor. Though notice was served on the second respondent/ de facto complainant, he has not chosen to enter appearance in this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the averments in the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant and the allegations raised against the appellant do not reveal commission of any offence under the Act by the appellant and therefore, the learned Sessions Judge has gone wrong in invoking Section 18A of the Act and declining the benefit of anticipatory bail to him.
8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor would Crl.A.No.1278/2019 5 contend that the first information statement given by the de facto complainant and the statements of other witnesses disclose the ingredients of the offence under the Act which is alleged against the appellant. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that there is absolute bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the Act against granting anticipatory bail to a person accused of having committed an offence under the Act.
9. Section 18 of the Act provides that nothing in Section 438 of the Code shall apply in relation to any case involving the arrest of any person on an accusation of having committed an offence under the Act.
10. Section 18A(2) of the Act, which was introduced by Act 27 of 2018 and which came into force with effect from 20.08.2018, provides that the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C shall not apply to a case under the Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.
11. The provisions contained in Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act do not prevent or prohibit the court from examining Crl.A.No.1278/2019 6 whether a prima facie case is made out attracting the provisions of the Act. If it is found by the court that a prima facie case is not made out against the accused and that the allegations against the accused do not attract any of the offences under the Act, the bar created under Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act against granting anticipatory bail, does not come into play. Judicial scrutiny is permissible to examine facts of a case to find out whether, prima facie, an offence under the Act has been committed or not by a person, before refusing him the benefit of anticipatory bail (See Binesh v. State of Kerala : 2020(1) KHC
240).
12. Therefore, the question arises whether the allegations raised against the appellant in the first information statement given to the police by the de facto complainant and the statements of the witnesses, prima facie, attract any offence under the Act.
13. Section 3(2)(v) of the Act provides that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, Crl.A.No.1278/2019 7 commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.
14. In the instant case, the offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C is alleged against the petitioner. There is a specific allegation that the de facto complainant sustained fracture to the bone of his shoulder on account of the assault made by the appellant with the stone. The copy of the wound certificate contained in the case diary, reveals that the de facto complainant has sustained fracture to the right clavicle. The offence under Section 326 I.P.C is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and fine. Therefore, the allegation against the appellant that he committed an offence punishable under Section 326 I.P.C would attract the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. Crl.A.No.1278/2019 8
15. Section 3(2)(va) of the Act provides that, whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code for such offences and shall also be liable to fine.
16. The offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C are alleged against the petitioner. The allegations raised against the accused/appellant in the first information statement, prima facie, constitute the ingredients of the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C. The offences punishable under Sections 341 and 324 I.P.C are mentioned in the Schedule of the Act. It follows that, prima facie, the allegations against the accused attract also the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the Act.
17. Of course, in order to attract the offences under Crl.A.No.1278/2019 9 Sections 3(2)(v) and 3(2)(va) of the Act, it has to be shown that the accused committed the offences against a person who is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or the property belonging to such person with the knowledge that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.
18. In the instant case, the averments in the first information statement would show that the appellant had knowledge that the de facto complainant is a person who belongs to scheduled caste. After the amendment of the Act, which came into force on 26.01.2016, mere knowledge of the accused that the person upon whom the offence is committed belongs to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, is sufficient (See Ashrafi v. State of U.P : AIR 2017 SC 5819).
19. In the aforesaid circumstances, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegations raised against the accused/appellant do not attract any offence under the Act. It follows that the provisions contained in Sections 18 and 18A(2) of the Act apply to the facts Crl.A.No.1278/2019 10 of the present case which would prevent the court from granting pre-arrest bail to the appellant.
20. In the aforesaid situation, I find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, dismissing the application for anticipatory bail filed by the appellant. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE jsr True Copy PS to Judge