Madras High Court
Karuppasamy vs State Rep. By on 11 August, 2021
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.6510 of 2019
Karuppasamy ... Appellant/Accused
Vs.
State rep. By
Inspector of Police,
Avinasipalayam Police Station,
Avinasipalayam,
Tirupur.
Crime No.70 of 2017 ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment made in Special S.C. No.9 of
2017 dated 31.01.2019 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions
Judge, Tiruppur.
For Appellant : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar
For Respondent : Mr.S.Sugendran
Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
The present criminal appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment
made in Special S.C. No.9 of 2017 dated 31.01.2019 on the file of the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
2. The respondent-police registered a case in Crime No.70 of 2017
against the appellant for the offence under Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii)
IPC and also Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
After investigation, the respondent-police laid charge sheet before the
learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tiruppur.
3. After completing formalities, the learned Sessions Judge taken the
case on file in Spl.S.C.No.09 of 2017 and framed charges against the
appellant for the offence under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of
SC/ST Act and Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC.
4. After framing charges, during trial, in order to prove the case of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined as PW.1 to PW.11 and
12 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 on the side of the
prosecution. Besides one material object was exhibited.
5. After completing examination of prosecution witnesses,
incriminating circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses were put before the appellant by questioning under Section
313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., for which the appellant denied the same as false and
pleaded not guilty. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary
evidence was produced.
6. After hearing the arguments advanced on either side and
considering the materials, the learned Sessions Judge, found that the
appellant was not guilty for the offence under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s)
and 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act and also Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and
acquitted the appellant from the said charges. Further, learned Sessions
Judge found guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 324 IPC
and the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo one year simple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo further
period of 3 months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment of
conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has filed the present criminal
appeal before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that no offence has
been made out and the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond
reasonable doubt. PW.2 and PW.3 who are said to be the eyewitnesses have
not supported the case of the prosecution, and no independent witnesses
have supported the case of the prosecution.
8. Even in the cross examination, the Doctor has not stated that it is a
fresh injury. Even though the alleged weapon viz., Aruval was recovered, it
has not been sent to the Forensic Lab. It is proved that the blood stain found
in the said Aruval is shed off by the victim. In the absence of supporting
evidence, the learned Sessions Judge, acquitted the appellant for the offence
under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act and also under
Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC but with the very same evidence, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
appellant was convicted only for the offence under Section 324 IPC on the
ground of sympathy. Therefore, without any material, the learned Session
Judge has come to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the
offence under Section 324 IPC, which warrants interference of this Court.
9. Learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the
respondent would submit that though PW.2 and PW.3 turned hostile and
PW.1 is the injured witness, who has clearly narrated the incident that the
appellant attacked him with weapon viz., Aruval, and he was sent to the
hospital for treatment. The Doctor, who gave treatment to the victim was
examined as PW.7 and he has clearly stated that he made entry in the
accident register, which clearly shows that known person has attacked the
victim with aruval, which corroborates the evidence of the injured
witness/PW.1. Though PW.2 and PW.3 have turned hostile, the injured
witness has categorically stated about the incident and the medical evidence
supported the case of prosecution and the Doctor evidence corroborated the
evidence of the injured witness. Though the Trial Court disbelieved the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses and acquitted the accused for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
charges framed under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC and Sections 3 (1)
(r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act, on the basis of evidences of PW.1,
PW.5 and PW.7, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the
offence under Section 324 IPC. Though the appellant caused injury with
Aruval, the learned Magistrate only awarded a lenient sentence of one year
and therefore, there is no mitigating circumstances to reduce the sentence
and appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
11. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.02.2017 at about 4.00
p.m., when PW.1 was in the coconut grove belonging to one Subramania
Gounder in which he was employed as a Gardener, the appellant climbed
the coconut tree and plucked tender coconuts which was questioned by
PW.1, and when he provoked the appellant, the appellant attacked PW.1
with Aruval. In this regard, PW.1 made a complaint before the respondent-
police. After investigation, the respondent-police laid charge sheet before
learned Sessions Judge. After completing formalities, the learned Sessions
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
Judge convicted the appellant. Hence, this appeal.
12. This Court, being an Appellate Court, is the final Court of fact
finding, which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and give
an independent finding.
13. In this case, totally 5 charges were framed against the appellant
and in order to substantiate those charges, totally 11 witnesses were
examined and 12 documents were marked on the side of the prosecution.
Out of 11 witnesses, the injured witness was examined as PW.1.
14. In the evidence of PW.1, he had clearly narrated the incident that
the appellant caused injury on his head by MO1.
15. Though PW.2, who is alleged to be present at the time of
occurrence, had turned hostile and not supported the case of the
prosecution. However, the Doctor, who admitted the appellant in the
hospital, was examined as PW.7. The evidence of PW.7 is very clear that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
PW.1 sustained injury and as per his opinion, it is a small injury and the
copy of the accident register was marked as Ex.P4. Therefore, in cases of
this nature, when the evidence of the injured witness is clear, the same has
to be considered.
16. In this case, the evidence of the injured witness is cogent,
consistent, convincing and trustworthy and there is no reason to discard the
same and the evidence of PW.7, corroborate the evidence of PW.1 and
Ex.P4, the copy of the accident register also clearly shows that one known
person attacked PW.1 with Aruval, which is M.O.1 and he was injured.
17. Though the Doctor opined that the injury is simple in nature, the
weapon is deadly and the injury is caused in the vital part of right side of his
head. One of the charges was framed under Section 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST Act
and Ex.P7 clearly shows that PW.1 belongs to the member of the Scheduled
Caste and Ex.P6 clearly shows that the appellant is not being the member of
the Scheduled Caste, attacked the victim with a weapon.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
18. Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, reads as under:-
“3(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled
Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:-
(va) 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 (45
of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine”
19. Therefore once the learned Sessions Court comes to the
conclusion that the appellant attacked PW.1 with deadly weapon and caused
head injury and convicted him under Section 324 IPC, the learned Sessions
Judge ought to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section
3(2)(va) of SC/ST Act also but by oversight the appellant was not convicted
for the said offence. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court as an Appellate Court independently finds that from the evidence
of PW.1, PW.7, and Ex.P4, the appellant has committed the offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
Section 324 IPC and there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW.1,
which was corroborated by the evidence of PW.7/Doctor and
Ex.P5/Accident Register. Therefore, this Court finds that the appellant has
committed the offence under Section 324 IPC and also under Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. However, neither the victim nor the State has
filed any appeal against that acquittal and the appellant has filed the appeal
only against the conviction. Considering the scope of appeal, this Court
comes to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence under
Section 324 IPC.
20. As far as mitigating circumstances on sentence is concerned, the
appellant used the deadly weapon/M.O.I and caused injury on head of the
injured witness/PW.1 and considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, there is no reason to modify the sentence and there is no merit in the
appeal and appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the criminal appeal
is dismissed.
21. Registry is directed to advice the Designated Court to take due
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
care while dealing with the Special Act for the offence of similar nature.
11.08.2021
Index: Yes/No
dm
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Tiruppur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Avinasipalayam Police Station,
Avinasipalayam,
Tirupur.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.,
dm
Crl.A.No.267 of 2019
and
Crl.M.P.6510 of 2019
11.08.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
