Madras High Court
Rasu vs State:Deputy Superintendent Of ... on 16 February, 2021
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 16.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
Crl.A.No.261 of 2019
Rasu ... Appellant/Accused
.Vs.
State:Deputy Superintendent of Police
Paramathi Velur Sub Division
Namakkal District
Cr.No.225/2010 ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. to call
for records and set aside the order dated 09.04.2019 made in
S.C.No.54/2014 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and
allow this Criminal Appeal.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Padmanabhan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Suryaprakash
Government Advocate
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and
sentence dated 09.04.2019, passed by the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Namakkal, in S.C.No.54 of 2014 on the file of the Principal
Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
2.The respondent police have registered a case against the
appellant/accused in Crime No.225 of 2010 for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 324, 506(i) IPC r/w 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.
After completing the investigation, they laid a charge-sheet before the
Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy and the learned Magistrate committed the
case to the Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and the same was taken
on file in S.C.No.54/2014.
3.After completing the formalities, the trial Court framed charges
for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 324, 506(i) I.P.C. &
Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, 1989.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
4.After trial, the learned Special Judge found the accused guilty of
the offences punishable under Sections 324, 506 (i) and 294 (b) I.P.C.
and Section 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, 1989 and convicted and
sentenced the appellant as under:
Sl.No. Conviction Sentence
1 U/s.324 I.P.C. 1 year R.I and fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo S.I. for 3 months.
2 U/s. 506 (i) I.P.C. 1 year R.I and fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo S.I. for 3 months
3 U/s. 294 (b) I.P.C. 3 months R.I and fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo S.I. for 3 weeks.
4 3(1)(X) of S.C./S.T. (POA) Act, 1989 1 year R.I and fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo S.I. for 3 months.
Aggrieved over the said Judgment of conviction, the accused has
filed the present appeal before this Court.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that since
P.W.1-the injured witness in her examination has not stated anything
about the appellant mentioning her caste and degraded her in the public,
the offence punishable under S.C/S.T. Act would not stand attracted, but
the learned Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W.1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
wrongly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
3 (1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act and therefore the same is liable to be set aside.
He would further submit that the appellant has not used any weapons for
attacking the victim and therefore Section 324 I.P.C would not stand
attracted and if at all, only Section 323 I.P.C. would stand attracted. He
would further submit that the injuries sustained by the victim are only
simple injuries as per evidence of P.W.13-Dr.Senthilnathan and not
grievous in nature, as alleged by the prosecution. He would further
submit that there is no evidence to show that the appellant had threatened
the injured and therefore the offence under Section 506 (ii) would not
stand attracted and the present case against the appellant has been foisted
due to previous enmity. He would further submit that the occurrence
took place on 18.06.2010 and the complaint was given only on
20.06.2010 and there is no explanation on the part of the prosecution for
the delay. He would further submit that there is civil dispute between
both the parties and therefore a false case was foisted against the
appellant, which was not taken note of by the trial Court. It is further
submitted that the appellant had given counter complaint against the de-
facto complainant and the same was not properly examined by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
investigating officer and referred charge sheet was filed as mistake of
fact. He would further submit that though P.W.1 in her evidence
deposed that she was repeatedly slapped on her cheek and her hair was
pulled and blouse was torn and the appellant had kicked her on the
stomach, no evidence, much less medical evidence, has been placed to
support the same. It is further submitted that P.W.1 admits that while she
was in hospital the Viduthalai Siruthai Party men came and saw her and
only because of their instigation, she implicated the appellant under
S.C./S.T. Act. He would further submit that the prosecution has failed to
prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial Judge failed to
appreciate the evidence in proper perspective and wrongly convicted the
appellant for the aforesaid offences, which requires to be interfered with.
6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) would submit that
the victim was examined as P.W.1 and she deposed that the father of the
appellant was grazing cattle in the field of the victim, she asked him to
take away the cattle from her filed due to which, after two days i.e., on
18.06.2010 at 4.30 P.M., when the victim was grazing her cattle near
Perumal Kovil the appellant came there and slapped her on her cheek
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
repeatedly and also pulled her tuft and tore her blouse and nighty and
also bit on her left hand and kicked on her stomach and the said overtacts
have been substantial by the evidence of P.W.13-Doctor who has stated in
his evidence that he found teeth impression on the left elbow of the
victim and therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 finds corroboration with
medical evidence. He would further submit that the community
certificate of the complainant clearly shows that the complainant belongs
to Scheduled Caste community and the appellant belongs to other
community and therefore Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act would stand
attracted and the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable
doubt. He would further submit that trial Court has rightly appreciated
the entire evidence on record and rightly convicted and sentenced the
appellant and therefore the Judgment of the trial Court does not warrant
interference.
7. The case of the prosecution is that two days prior to the alleged
occurrence when the father of the appellant was grazing cattle in the field
of the victim, there was a wordy quarrel between the victim and the
father of the appellant in which the victim asked the father of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
appellant to take away the cattle from her field and due to which, after
two days i.e, on 18.06.2010 at about 4.30 P.M. when the victim was
grazing her cattle near Perumal Kovil the appellant came there and
slapped on her cheek repeatedly and also pulled her tuft and tore her
blouse and nighty and also bit on her left hand and kicked on her
stomach. Further, he abused her in filthy language by uttering her caste
name. Therefore the complainant preferred a complaint before the
respondent police. The respondent police, after investigation laid charge
sheet and the same was taken on file by Judicial Magistrate, Paramathy in
P.R.C.No.15/2013 and since the offence falls under S.C./S.T.Act, the case
was committed to Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal and the same was
taken on file in S.C.No.54 of 2014 and the learned Sessions Judge, after
completing the formalities framed the charges as against the appellant
and after trial, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra.
8.In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as
15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15, and 10 documents were marked as
Exs.P1 to P10, and no Material Object was marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
9.After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses,
all the incriminating circumstances as culled out from the deposition of
the prosecution witnesses were put before the appellant and the appellant
denied it as false. On the side of the appellant D.W.1 and D.W.2 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P10 were marked.
10.After hearing the arguments on either side and considering the
evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge, vide judgment dated
09.04.2019 in S.C.No.54 of 2014, convicted and sentenced the appellant
as stated above. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence,
the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
11.This Court, being an Appellate Court, is a fact finding Court,
which has to necessarily re-appreciate the entire evidence and give an
independent finding.
12. It is the specific case of the prosecution that on 18.06.2010 at
about 4.30 P.M., the de-facto complainant while grazing her cattle ,near
Perumal Kovil the appellant came there and slapped her on her cheek
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
repeatedly and also pulled her tuft and tore her blouse and nighty and
also bit on her left hand and kicked on her stomach. Further, he abused
her in filthy language by uttering her caste name. In order to prove the
same, the prosecution examined the defacto complainant as P.W.1 and a
careful reading of deposition of P.W.1 shows that she is residing at
Valnaickenpalayam and doing Coolie work and she belongs to S.C.
Community and she knows the accused and he belongs to Gounder
community and two days prior to the occurrence when the father of the
accused was grazing his cattle in her field, as there was pending dispute
between them, she asked the father of the appellant to take away the
cattle, due to which after two days the appellant had committed the
aforesaid offence. Further she deposed that on hearing her noise , her
mother-in-law and brother-in-law came to the place of occurrence and on
seeing them the appellant ran away from the place. P.W.1 went to
Namakkal Government Hospital for taking treatment along with her
brother-in-law and her husband Raja and after two days the police came
and enquired her and thereafter obtained signature in the complaint and
the signature in the complaint is marked as Ex.P1 and the complaint is
marked as Ex.P2. Further, the brother-in- law of the de-facto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
complainant, who had seen the occurrence was examined as P.W.2 and he
has clearly deposed the alleged occurrence. Further, the husband of the
complainant was examined as P.W.3. He has deposed that on the alleged
day of occurrence he found P.W.1 with bleeding injuries in her hand and
immediately he took her to Namakkal Government Hospital for taking
treatment along with his brother. P.W.s 4, 6 and 7 have corroborated the
evidence of P.W.s 1, 2 and 3. P.W.8-Tahsildar who issued community
certificate to the appellant (Ex.P4) and community certificate to the
victim (EX.P5) deposed in his evidence that the appellant belongs to
backward community and the de-facto complainant belongs to Scheduled
Caste Community. From the evidence of P.W.s 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7, clearly
reveal that the prosecution has proved that the appellant had assaulted the
victim due to which she sustained injury. Immediately after the
occurrence, she was admitted in the hospital and the doctor P.W.13
examined her on 18.06.2010 at about 10.40 P.M. and on enquiry, she has
stated that one known person had bit on her left elbow and on
examination he found teeth impression on the left elbow and he admitted
her as inpatient and after taking x-ray and scan, he opined that the injury
was simple in nature. He further deposed that P.W.2 had brought the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
complainant to the hospital. The wound certificate is marked as Ex.P8.
The evidence of the Doctor also corroborates the case of the prosecution.
Further, the police went to the hospital after two days and on enquiring
the victim the criminal machinery was set in motion. The whole gamut
of the prosecution case leading to the registration of the complaint, this
Court is of the view that the delay in lodging the complaint is in no way
fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the victim taking treatment at the
hospital for simple injury and on coming to know of the occurrence, the
police had gone to the hospital and got the complaint from the victim.
13. Insofar as the offence under S.C./S.T. Act is concerned, the
complainant has not deposed the appellant had abused her by caste name.
Though P.W.2 and P.W.7 deposed that the accused had abused the
complainant by caste name, a careful reading of the complaint shows
that she has not stated anywhere about the same and therefore the
conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court for the offence under
Section 3 (1) (x) of S.C./S.T. Act is liable to be set aside and accordingly
the same is set aside. The fine amount, if any, paid in respect of the said
offence shall be refunded.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
14. Insofar as the other offences are concerned, this Court finds
that the trial court, on proper appreciation of the evidence of the
witnesses which finds corroboration both in oral and documentary form,
has rightly appreciated convicted the accused and hence the conviction
and sentence imposed on the appellant for the other offences viz., 294
(b), 324, 506 (i) I.P.C. are confirmed.
15. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.
The suspension of sentence already granted by this Court dated
08.05.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.6470 of 2019 in Crl.A.No.261 of 2019 stands
cancelled. The trial Court is directed to secure the appellant for
sufferance of the above sentence.
16.02.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Paramathi Velur Sub Division
Namakkal District.
Cr.No.225/2010.
2. The Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
4.The Deputy Registrar (Crl.side)
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A. No.261 of 2019
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
arr
Crl.ANo.261 of 2019
16.02.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
