Vetrivel vs State Represented By Its
2021 Latest Caselaw 3792 Mad

                                                                               Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                DATED : 16.02.2021

                                                     CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

                                                Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

                     Vetrivel                                           ... Appellant

                                                   Versus

                     State represented by its
                     The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                     Omalur Sub Division,
                     Salem District.
                     (Crime No.785 of 2014, Omalur Police Station)     ... Respondent

                     PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C seeking
                     to set aside the judgement in S.C.No.298 of 2016, on the file of the
                     Principal Sessions Judge, Salem dated 31.10.2019, convicting the appellant
                     herein to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine
                     of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo Rigorous
                     Imprisonment for Nine Months for the offence under section 3(1)(r) of the
                     Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as
                     amended for the Ordinance, 2014 and also convicted and sentenced to
                     undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for Three years and to pay a fine of
                     Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo Rigorous


                     1/12


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
                                                                                          Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

                     Imprisonment for Nine months for the offence under section 3(1)(s) of the
                     Schedules Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as
                     amended for the ordinance 2014 and also convicted and sentenced to
                     undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-
                     (Rupees One Thousand only) in default, to undergo RI for three months for
                     the offence under section 323 IPC r/w.3(1)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and
                     Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended for the
                     ordinance 2014 and allow this Criminal Appeal.
                               For Appellant                : Mr.D.Baskar
                               For Respondent               : Mr.R.Suryaprakash
                                                              Government Advocate

                                                             ORDER

This Criminal Appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the

judgement in S.C.No.298 of 2016, on the file of the Principal Sessions

Judge, Salem dated 31.10.2019.

2.The respondent police registered a case against the appellant for the

offence punishable under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and section 323 IPC

r/w.section 3(1)(va) of the Schedule Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of

the Atrocities Act as amended for the Ordinance 2014. After the

investigation, they laid charge sheet before the District Munsif cum Judicial

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

Magistrate, Omalur and the same was taken on file in P.R.C.No.29 of 2014

and after completing the formality, committed the case to the Designated

Court(Principal Sessions Judge, Salem) and the learned Sessions Judge after

completing formality taken the case on file in S.C.No.298 of 2016 and after

framing charges and trial, convicted the appellant as under:

(i) In respect of first charge against the accused he is convicted for for

the offence punishable under section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended for the

Ordinance 2014 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three

years and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default shall undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for nine months.

(ii) In respect of second charge against the accused he is convicted

for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended for the

Ordinance 2014 and sentenced to under go Rigorous Imprisonment for 3

years and shall pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default shall undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for 9 months.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

(iii) In respect of third charge against the accused he is convicted for

offence punishable under section 323 IPC r/w.3(1)(va) of the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as amended for

the ordinance 2014 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for

one year and shall pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default shall undergo Rigorous

Imprisonment for 3 months. Challenging the said judgment of conviction

and sentence the appellant is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is a

delay in filing the case but no proper explanation. He further submitted that

the date of occurrence was on 30.08.2014 at about 4.00 p.m., on the very

same day, the investigating officer was said to have been appointed by the

competent authority, which is not at all possible and the investigating

officer was not properly authorized to investigate the case and the

Investigating Officer without any authority has conducted the investigation.

Therefore this itself go to the root of the case and fatal to the case of the

prosecution and the allegations not fall under section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (POA) amendment Ordinance 2014 and

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

the learned designated Court failed to apply its mind and also failed to

appreciate the evidence which does not establish any ingredients of section

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and section 323 r/w.3(1)(va) of SC/ST of (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act as amended for the Ordinance, 2014 and it would not attract

any offence. Though P.W.4 is stated to have been an eye witness, he has not

supported the case of the prosecution and the place of alleged occurrence is

not within the public view but it is within four walls of the building.

Therefore the place of alleged occurrence is not public place, therefore the

Act would not attract. The learned Sessions Judge failed to take into

account all the factors and convicted the appellant without any material.

4. The defacto complainant was a tenant under the uncle of the

appellant and the dispute arose regarding vacating premises by the tenant.

The prosecution case also admitted that there was dispute between landlord

and tenant with regard to vacate the premises. Therefore, in order to avoid

action, P.W.1 foisted false case against the appellant and the learned trial

Judge failed to consider and appreciate the evidence which warrants

interference.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

5. The learned Government Advocate would submit that the

complainant P.W.1 clearly narrated the facts that when she was in her

tailoring shop, the accused came to her shop and abused her against her

community and also assaulted P.W.1 on her cheek and uttered words

degrading her caste by saying v';fo njtoah fz;lhu xyp cd; g[Uc{d; nghapl;lhd;.

v';f bgupag;gh filapy; fil itj;J bfhz;L v';ffpl;ilna jfuhWf;F tu;wP';f XG';fh

filia fhyp gz;Z';f”. P.W.3 is one of the eye witness who was present at the

time of occurrence nearby shop and also seeing the appellant and the victim

P.W.1 and also hearing the voices, stated that the appellant scolded the

victim using caste name. Therefore the evidence of P.W.3 corroborated the

evidence of P.W.1. P.W.6 and P.W.7 partly turned hostile but supported the

case of the prosecution to the extent by stating that both the appellant and

the victim were in the occurrence place. P.W.7 also corroborated the same

with the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. The prosecution has proved the case

beyond reasonable doubt but there was delay in sending the FIR. The Court

on the sole ground of delay in sending the FIR, cannot disallow the case of

the prosecution. Based on the complaint given by P.W.1, the case of the

prosecution was properly authorized by appointing a competent

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

investigating officer and as such, there is no procedural violation and there

is no violation on the mandatory provisions of the Special Act. Therefore,

prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court

appreciates the evidence in the right way and passed the judgment,

therefore, the criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.

6. Heard and perused the records.

7. The case of the prosecution is that the victim and her husband were

running a tailoring shop in a rented building which belongs to one

Chinnathambi. The accused is the brother of one Mekala who is the

daughter of Chinnathambi's brother Selvam. The accused belongs to

Navithar community and is not a member of the SC/ST. There was a quarrel

between the children of victim and Mekala. When victim questioned

Mekala, the accused came in support of Mekala and quarreled with victim.

The said accused is running a saloon shop. In view of the above said

quarrel, the accused was insisting the victim to vacate the shop.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

8.It is further alleged in the petition that on 30.08.2014 at about 4.

p.m., in front of the tailoring shop when the victim was inside the building

which belonged to Chinnathambi, the accused who is not a member of

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, abused and intimidated the

witness/victim who is a member of Scheduled Caste in obscene words and

also insulted her by mentioning the caste name with an intention to

humiliate the victim within public view who is a member of the SC. Hence

the complaint.

9.In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the

prosecution, 12 witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.12 were examined and 8 documents

were marked as Ex.P1 to P8. No material object was exhibited. After

completing the examination of prosecuting witnesses, incriminating

circumstances culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses

were put to the appellant, who denied it as false and pleaded not guilty. On

the side of the appellant, no oral and documentary evidence was produced.

The Trial Court after perusing the entire materials on record, convicted the

appellant and sentenced as narrated in the preceding paragraph.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

10.The appellate Court as fact finding Court in order to give

independent finding has to re appreciate the entire evidence. A reading of

the evidence on the side of the prosecution, would show that the defacto

complainant was examined as P.W.1 in this case. She has clearly narrated

the occurrence place and that the appellant beaten the victim and also

uttered the name of the caste of the victim. P.W.3 who was present at the

time of occurrence also clearly deposed that he was nearby in the

occurrence place and he stated that the appellant beaten the defacto

complainant and uttered the name of the caste of the victim. P.W.6 and 7

also has clearly corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.3. P.W.6 also

has stated that at that time, he was in the nearby occurrence place wherein,

the defacto complainant and appellant had dispute. Therefore from the

evidence of P.W.9 and 10 and Ex.P4 and P5, it is apparent that the defacto

complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste and the appellant belongs to

MBC. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.9 and

P.W.10, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubt.

The place of occurrence is a public place. Though the learned counsel for

the appellant would submit that it is within the four walls, it cannot be

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

accepted because the place of occurrence is tailoring shop which is a public

place and people would come and go and also at the time of occurrence

P.W.1 and 3 are present; the appellant uttered the name of the caste of the

victim and beaten the victim. The doctor one who gave treatment to the

victim was examined as P.W.8, copy of the accident register marked as

Ex.P3 which show known person assaulted with hand. The injury sustained

by the victim is simple in nature. Therefore, the prosecution has proved that

the appellant beaten the victim and also with the intention mentioned the

caste name of the victim and degraded the caste. Therefore, under these

circumstances, this Court, while appreciating the evidence independently,

is of the view that the appellant has committed the offence under section

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and section 323 IPC r/w.section 3(1)(va) of the Schedule

Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of the Atrocities Act as amended for the

Ordinance 2014 and there is no merit in the appeal and it is liable to be

dismissed.

11. The conviction imposed by the trial court is confirmed. However,

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the quantum of the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

sentence imposed by the trial court is modified from 3 years to 2 years

which will meet ends of Justice. Since this court by order dated 18.11.2019,

granted suspension of sentence by imposing certain conditions and the

appellant was enlarged on bail, the trial court is directed to take appropriate

steps so as to arrest him to serve out the remaining period of sentence.

16.02.2021

mpa

To

1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Omalur Sub Division, Salem District.

2.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN,J.

mpa

Crl.A.No.784 of 2019

16.02.2021

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