S.Pushpa vs The State Represented By
2021 Latest Caselaw 15878 Mad

                                                                              Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  DATED : 05.08.2021

                                                      CORAM:

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

                                               Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

                     S.Pushpa                                    ... Appellant/Accused
                                                        Vs.
                     The State represented by,
                     The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                     Brahmadesam Police Station,
                     Tindivanam Taluk,
                     Villupuram District.
                     (Crime No. 333 of 2013)                     ... Respondent/Complainant



                     PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374
                     Cr.P.C., against the judgment dated 11.04.2016, made in Special Sessions
                     Case No.177 of 2015, on the file of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial
                     of Cases Registered under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
                     Villupuram, convicting the appellant/accused under Section 324 of IPC
                     and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and
                     imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for
                     three months and also convicting the appellant/accused under Section
                     3(1)(x) of the Scheduled caste and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
                     Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment
                     for one year and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple
                     imprisonment for three months.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                     1/12
                                                                                     Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

                                   For Petitioner        : Mr.B.Vijay
                                   For R1                : Mr.K.N.Nataraj
                                   For R2                : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
                                                           Government Advocate

                                                       ORDER

The convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

2.This Criminal Appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment

passed in Spl.S.C.No.177 of 2015, by the Special Court for Exclusive

Trial of Cases Registered under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

Villupuram, dated 11.04.2016, wherein, the learned Judge has convicted

the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and

sentenced her to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and imposed

a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three

months and also convicted the appellant/accused for the offence under

Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and scheduled Tribes (Prevention

of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced her to undergo simple

imprisonment for one year and imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to

undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

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

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

3(i).The respondent police has filed a charge sheet alleging that on

19.08.2013 at about 1.00 p.m., within the limit of Brammadesam Police

Station, at Keezhsevur village, near the way leading to

Thavamuneeswarar Temple Pond, the witness Amutha and other

witnesses returned to their houses after the completion of 100 days work,

the accused wrongfully restrained the witness namely Amutha and

committed the offence punishable under Section 341 of IPC, 1860.

3(ii).The accused has taken a stone from the ground and threatened

the witness Amutha to kill her and had beaten on her head and caused

injury and thereby, the accused is alleged to have committed the offence

punishable under Section 307 of IPC, 1860.

3(iii).The accused scolded the witness namely Amutha in the

public place as “,Ush; bjtpoah Kz;lh” (Irula Prostitute Widow)

and committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,

1989.

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

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

4.The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram has framed the

charges against the accused for the offence under Section 341 and 307 of

IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities)

Act, 1989.

5.To prove the case of the prosecution, PW1 to PW8 were

examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked on the side of the prosecution.

No witness was examined and no exhibit was marked on the side of the

defence. Material Objects 1 and 2 were marked on the prosecution side.

6.PW1 is the victim girl; PW2, PW3, PW4 are the persons, who

said to have been accompanied with the PW1; PW5 is the person, who

has admitted PW1 in the hospital; PW6 is the attester of Observation

Mahazar/Ex.P2, Seizure Mahazar Ex.P3, MO1 and MO2; PW7 is the

Assistant Civil Surgeon of Tindivanam Government Hospital, who has

treated the victim and issued Ex.P4/Accident Register; PW8 is the

Investigating Officer, who had filed the charge sheet after investigation.

For the reasons best known, the prosecution has not examined LW13/Sub

Inspector of Police, who has received complaint and registered

Ex.P5/printed FIR. For the reasons discussed infra, after the trial, the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

learned Sessions Judge has convicted the accused under Section 3(1)(x)

of SC/ST Act and 324 of IPC, however, acquitted the accused for the

offence under Section 341 and 307 of IPC.

7.The case of the prosecution as could be seen from the cross

examination of PW1 and PW2 is that PW1 is the servant worked in the

house of the accused and they are supplying coolies to do agricultural

activity. To bring the coolies for the accused, the victim had cheated the

accused by showing several number of coolies have worked in the 100

days employment scheme and thereby, misappropriated more money than

coolies worked, thereby she cheated the accused and hence, the accused

stopped the services of the victim and hence, a false case has been filed

against them.

8.The learned Sessions Judge has negatived the defence case and

convicted the accused as stated supra and hence, the Criminal Appeal.

9.The learned counsel for the convicted accused/appellant herein

would contend that there is a delay of 17 days in preferring the complaint

to the police. In support of the specific suggestion put to PW1 and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

PW8/Investigation Officer, the learned Sessions Judge has not

questioned the said plea raised by the accused. Furthermore, there is a

material contradiction as to the use of the weapon that whether it is stone

or stemp and further contended that as per the medical evidence, it is a

stone; as per the evidence of PW3 and PW4, it is a stemp. Furthermore,

as to the alleged recovery, the evidence of PW1 is that they have handed

over the material object to the police, however, the Investigating Officer

has projected as if the Material Objects were recovered from the scene of

crime. The caste word mentioned in Ex.P1/complaint is different from

caste word spoken to by PW1 in the witness box and hence, seeks for

acquittal.

10.The leaned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondent made submissions in support of the finding rendered by the

learned Sessions Judge.

11.At the out set, as per Ex.P6/proceedings of the Superintendent

of Police,Villupuram District for nominating the Investigating Officer,

Ex.P9/Community Certificate of the victim issued by District Revenue

Officer, Tindivanam and Ex.P10/Community Certificate of the accused https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

issued by Thasildar, Tindivanam, the victim is the member of the Hindu

Irular Community while the accused is the member of the Hindu

Vanniyar Community and hence, ingredients for the alleged offence

under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST is made out. Whether the accused has

utterred caste word with an intention to humiliate PW1 in the public

place within public view, in respect of charge under Section 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST Act? From Exs.P7/Observation Mahazar and Ex.P8/Rough

Sketch, alleged scene of Crime is the public place. Whether the accused

has uttered caste word against PW1 in a public place within public view?

Admittedly, none of the prosecution witness except PW1 has deposed

therein regarding utterance of caste word by the accused against PW1,

assumes significance.

12.It remains to be stated that for the reasons best known, the Sub-

Inspector of Police, who has received Ex.P1/Complaint from PW1 and

registered Ex.P5/printed FIR as described from the witness box by not

given evidence before the Court.

13.It is the specific suggestive case of the accused that the

complaint was not prepared by PW1, it was prepared by the political https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

party affiliated to communist community and Ex.P1/complaint was

written by an Advocate in the Advocate Office and an answer was also

elicited from the cross-examination of PW1 to that effect viz., PW1 has

admitted in the cross-examination that she had not written

Ex.P1/complaint and it was written by the advocate in the Advocate

Office affiliated to the communist party and the said complaint said to

have been lodged with a delay of 17 days. PW8/DSP, could depose that

the complaint has been given only after 17 days. The learned Judge has

filed to take note of this aspect and chosen to omit discussion on the

point of delay.

14.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant,

when a complaint has been emerged from the Office of the Advocate, it is

a coloured complaint and fabricated complaint and when that being the

case, the learned Sessions Judge ought to have insisted upon the police

constable who had received the complaint and registered FIR to give

evidence. So as to give particulars, the prosecution has successfully

evaded to examine the material witness and hence, I find that the

Ex.P1/complaint is the consulted complaint and Ex.P5/FIR also indicates

that the accused has uttered certain words against PW1 alleging that PW1 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

who is servant of the accused is having illicit physical relationship with

her husband and maintaining paramour relationship with her husband.

The suggestive case of the defence regarding the illegal relationship of

PW1 with husband, by words uttered on that day duly accepted by PW2

and PW4 in their cross examination assumes significance.

15.The accused is legally wedded by her husband and she scolded

PW1, who is ex-worker, alleged to have had physical relationship with

her husband during her absence and calling her as a paramour and hence,

this Court finds that there is a previous enmity between PW1 and the

accused with regard to their marital status and illegal activity with her

husband assumes significance and hence, this Court finds that the

suggestive case of the defence that due to the previous enmity with

regard to the employment and conduct of PW1, there is a previous

enmity between the appellant and PW1 and hence, the exaggerated event

cannot be ruled out.

16.It remains to be stated except PW1, none of the prosecution

witnesses PW2 to PW4 deposed regarding the utterance of caste word in

the public place within public view. Accordingly, this Court holds that in https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

view of the previous enmity, there is a motive and in the absence of any

positive evidence, to show that utterance of caste word in public place

within public view has not been satisfied by the prosecution. In this view

of the matter, for non compliance of essential ingredients of offence

under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, the conviction cannot be laid in law.

Accordingly, conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act stands

vacated and set aside.

17.On the conviction of Section 324 of IPC, PW7/ Dr.Santhiya

could depose that the injuries appears on the body of PW1 are simple in

nature and she was treated as out patient (OP), while PW1 has

exaggerated the said injuries. As could be seen from the version of PW1

in the witness box, her further evidence is that she was treated as in-

patient for 15 days falls to ground in view of the oral evidence of PW7

and documentary evidence of Ex.P4/Accident Register and hence, I find

that a minor incidence of wordily quarrel between two ladies was

exaggerated by PW1 to wreck vengeance against the accused with regard

to the sharing of the husband of appellant.

18.Taking note of the answer elucidated in the cross-examination https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

PW1 and PW5 that such an injury caused on the head of the victim

hence, this Court finds that the conviction under Section 324 of IPC is

sustainable, further, the sentence is modified to the period already

undergone and the fine amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the learned

Sessions Judge is enhanced to Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- already paid

for the purpose under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, which was set aside

by this Court, shall be adjusted to the balance amount.

19.With the above observations, this Criminal Appeal stands

allowed to the limited extent as indicated above.

Note:The Registry is directed to call for explanation from the learned

Judicial Officer, if he is in service, about the non examination of the

constable, who has received FIR and also not adverting to the delay

aspect raised by the defence in any part of the judgment and index to the

judgment was not in accordance to the instructions given by the High

Court.

05.08.2021 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No dua

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

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.

dua

To

1.The Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Villupuram.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Brahmadesam Police Station, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District.

3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Crl.A.No.290 of 2016

05.08.2021

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