Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The appellant/accused stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 323 IPC, 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act, 1998, Sections 3(1)(4) and 3(1)(S) of SC & ST Act and also under Section 3(2)(Va) of the SC & ST Amendment Act 2015. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3. The allegation against the appellant/accused is that on 01.09.2018, at the place of occurrence i.e., land of the accused near Ayyanar Temple in Mattur Village attacked PW-1 by Velikathan stick on his left shoulder, right hand fingers and caused simple injuries, attacked PW-2, Sumathy, wife of PW-1 and harassed her, knowing fully well that the witnesses PWs1&2 belonged to Irular community, used abusing language against PW-1 by saying “,Ush; njt[oah igah”. It is stated by the prosecution that the appellant/accused was having a brick kiln and witnesses PWs 1 & 2 were working in his brick kiln and that the appellant/accused gave a sum of Rs.20,000/- to PW-1 towards advance for manufacturing brick in his brick kiln on the agreement that wages for a brick was at the rate of 50 paise per brick; that accepting the terms, PWs 1 & 2 were working in the brick kiln of the appellant/accused. The accused used to give Rs.1000/- per week. The balance amount was deducted from the advance amount; that the appellant/accused requested for deployment of manpower for brick cutting of $ij; that PW-1 arranged the manpower as requested by the appellant/accused and the accused paid Rs.80,000/- as advance for four $ijfs; (Res.20,000/- for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis each $ij) and the manpower were paid Rs.1000/- per week and the balance amount was deducted from the advance amount. In the meanwhile, the lorry belonging to the appellant/accused was seized by the financier for the default in payment and hence, the appellant/accused sought for help from the PW-1 and the PW-1 also gave a sum of Rs.20,000/- by cash and 2½ sovereign of gold. The witnesses were continuously working in the brick kiln of the appellant/accused. The accused delayed the repayment of debt on some reasons or the other. On 17.05.2018, the appellant/accused called PW-1 over phone as stated that he would return the 2½ sovereign gold and also the cash. PW-1 could not go on that day, however he went to the place of appellant/accused after two days and demanded the cash and jewels and at that time, the appellant/accused attacked PW-1 with Velikathan Thadi as MO-1, on his back and on his left shoulder and the appellant/accused used abusive language “,Ush; njt[oah igah cdf;F vz;lh gzk;

bfhLf;f ntz;Lk;”. PW-2, the wife of PW-1 came to the rescue of PW-1 and questioned the appellant/accused for attacking PW-1. The accused also used abusive language against her and beat on her back. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis PW-1 went to one Mr.Ramesh, who is the President of the Irular Community Association and he drafted the complaint (Ex.P1), which was given by the PW-1 in Vikravandi Police Station on 21.05.2018. On receipt of the complaint from PW-1, one Mr.Ramesh Sub-Inspector of Police, was on duty at 6.00 pm assigned CSR number and thereafter PW- 13, Sub- Inspector of Police registered the complaint on 23.05.2018 at 7.30 pm and the FIR is marked as Ex.P.9. Thereafter, PWs-1 & 2, underwent treatment in Mundiyambakkam hospital.

6. The Trial Judge has considered all the contentions put forth by the appellants and has come to a conclusion that the reasons given by the PW-1 for the delay that as he was not educated, he went to one Mr.Ramesh, who was the President of Irular community Association and he prepared the complaint and it is their habit and practice that they used to bring to the notice of the association about the issues they faced and hence, the delay occurred is acceptable. Though the mahazaar witnesses https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis have turned hostile, PW-14, the Investigating Officer has categorically stated in his evidence that he visited the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazaar and the rough sketch and that the place of occurrence was near Ayyanar temple and in the brick kiln of the accused. Though the witnesses Pws.3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 are interested witnesses and their evidence is cogent and they have narrated the occurrence cogently and their evidence is corroborative in nature. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the witnesses have deposed about the incident naturally and reliable manner. The medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of PWs 1 & 2. On the side of the appellant/accused another ground was raised before the Trial Court that the Sub-Inspector of Police, who assigned the CSR to the complaint given by PW-1 was not examined before the Trial Court as a witness and that it is incorrect and illegal to have registered CSR for an offence under Special Enactment. The Trial Court has concluded that though there are procedural irregularities, it cannot be stated that the occurrence did not happen and that the delay in registering the complaint has not affected the case of the prosecution.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials placed on record.

11. A careful perusal of the evidence that the PW-1/defacto complainant, who has stated that he got Rs.20000/- from the appellant for working in the brick kiln belonging to the appellant and the said amount obtained was an advance for which they have to work daily. They have to manufacture 10000 brick, for which their salary was a sum of Rs.5000/-, but the appellant deducted Rs.4000/- from the advance amount and every week they were paid only Rs.1000/-. Subsequently the appellant gave Rs.80,000/- to the defacto complainant and asked to bring persons for 4 pairs of brick cuttings. As per the promise made , the defacto complainant also brought the relatives /family members to work in the brick kiln. At one point of time, there was a loss in the brick business. The appellant borrowed some money from the defacto complainant and also jewels were given by the defacto complainant to the appellant, for which the appellant asked to come and collect the same, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis but however, at the time, the appellant scolded the defacto complainant with filthy language and also humiliated by attiring the caste name and when the defacto complainant questioned, he was beaten by the appellant with wooden log, due to which he sustained injury and similarly when PW-2/wife of PW-1 also questioned the same, the appellant scolded her with filthy language and also attiring caste name beat and insulted her. Thereafter they informed to their association, 'Irular Sangam', since the defacto complainant belonged to the Irular community, which falls under the members of the ST community. Thereafter they went to the hospital and on the next day, they preferred the complaint. Out of 14 witnesses, the defacto complainant was examined as PW-1, who has clearly narrated the incident and also the fact that the appellant humiliated by attiring caste name in the public place and assaulted with wooden log and caused injury. PW-2, wife of PW-1 also corroborated the evidence of PW-1. Both were admitted in the hospital, which is proved by Accident Register/Ex.P.6 & Ex.P.7, which shows that they were admitted in the hospital on the next day i.e., on 20.05.2018 at 3.30 pm and the occurrence had taken place on 19.05.2018 at about 17.30 hours. Though https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the defacto complainant had given the complaint on 21.05.2018 and the case was registered only on 23.05.2018 at about 19.30 hours. Thereafter police officials conducted the investigation.