Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Since the accused pleaded not guilty, Trial was ordered.

3.7.Thereafter, the Trial Court was constituted as the Exclusive Special Court under Section 14 of the SC/ST (POA) Act vide G.O.(Ms) No.793, Home (Courts-II) Department, dated 07.10.2013. In view of the same, the Principal District Judge, Villupuram transferred the case to the Trial Court.

3.8.To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.13 (Witnesses) and marked Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 (Documents). The defence side neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. No Material Objects were marked by either side. The incriminating evidence against A1 to A3 available on record were put forth in the form of questions to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and the accused denied the same as false. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.NO.830 OF 2016 3.9.The Trial Court after hearing either side, concluded that the charge against A1 under Section 307 of IPC has not been made out, however, the prosecution has proved the charges for the offence punishable under Section 335 of IPC; that the prosecution has proved the charges against A1 to A3 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC / ST (POA) Act; and that the prosecution has not proved the charge against A1 for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of SC / ST (POA) Act; and that the prosecution has not proved the charge against A2 and A3 for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and convicted and sentenced A1 to A3 as stated supra in paragraph no.(1).

3.10.It is to be noted here that the Trial Court decided that A1 attacked P.W.2 due to sudden provocation and A1 had no intention to cause grievous hurt to P.W.2; that prosecution has not established the fact that A1 had intention or knowledge to cause death of P.W.2; and that the charge framed against A1 under Section 307 of IPC has not been made out. The Trial Court further decided that the act of A1 would attract the offence punishable under Section 335 of IPC. Accordingly, convicted and sentenced A1 under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.NO.830 OF 2016 Section 335 of IPC. Further, Trial Court decided that A1 is not found guilty under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Further, the Trial Court decided that A2 and A3 are not found guilty for the charge punishable under Section 324 of IPC. Accordingly, acquitted A1 and A2 from the charge under Section 324 of IPC.

16.To attract Section 335 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove that the occurrence happened due to sudden provocation. In this case, there is no evidence with regard to the sudden provocation. Hence, the Trial Court's conclusion that A1 committed the offence under Section 335 of IPC is to be interfered with. Point No.(i) is answered accordingly in favour of A1 and against the prosecution.

20.In the light of the dispositive reasoning alluded to supra, this Court interferes with the findings of the Trial Court with respect to the conviction of A1 under Section 335 of IPC and conviction of A1 to A3 under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and sets them aside.

21.Resultantly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants / accused on November 18th, 2016, in Special Sessions Case No.187 of 2015, by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis CRL.A.NO.830 OF 2016 Villupuram is hereby set aside and the appellants / accused are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them. Bail bonds, if any, shall stand terminated. Fine amount, if any paid by the appellants, shall be refunded to them.