Rasu vs State:Deputy Superintendent Of ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3801 Mad

                                                                        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 and
                                           Crl.M.P.No.6470 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




http://www.judis.nic.in1/14
                                                                            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.

http://www.judis.nic.in2/14 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

http://www.judis.nic.in3/14 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 investigating officer and

http://www.judis.nic.in4/14 Crl.A. No.261 of 2019

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

http://www.judis.nic.in5/14 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

appellant to take away the cattle from her field and due to which, after

http://www.judis.nic.in6/14 Crl.A. No.261 of 2019

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.

9.After completing the examination of the prosecution witnesses,

http://www.judis.nic.in7/14 Crl.A. No.261 of 2019

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

repeatedly and also pulled her tuft and tore her blouse and nighty and

http://www.judis.nic.in8/14 Crl.A. No.261 of 2019

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

complainant, who had seen the occurrence was examined as P.W.2 and he

http://www.judis.nic.in9/14 Crl.A. No.261 of 2019

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

complainant to the hospital. The wound certificate is marked as Ex.P8.

http://www.judis.nic.in10/14 Crl.A. No.261 of 2019

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.

http://www.judis.nic.in11/14 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

16.02.2021 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

http://www.judis.nic.in12/14 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.

http://www.judis.nic.in13/14 Crl.A. No.261 of 2019

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

arr

Crl.ANo.261 of 2019

16.02.2021

http://www.judis.nic.in14/14