Madras High Court
Sm.Chinnathambi vs Crime No.551/2015 on 5 April, 2023
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
SM.Chinnathambi .. Appellant/Accused
.vs.
State through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Ulundurpet Sub Division
Thirunavalur Police Station.
Crime No.551/2015 .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned
Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusive trial of cases registered under the scheduled
castes and the scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Villupuram in
Special S.C.No.87 of 2016, dated 07.03.2017.
For Appellant Mr.V.S.Sivasundaram
For Respondent Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate (Crl Side)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page No.1 of 8
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by
the Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusive trial of cases registered under the
scheduled castes and the scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989, (in short
'SC/ST Act') Villupuram in Special S.C.No.87 of 2016, dated 07.03.2017, convicting and
sentencing the appellant in the following manner:
Offence Sentence
Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of One year simple imprisonment and to
the Scheduled Castes and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and in
the Scheduled Tribes default to undergo three months
(Prevention of Atrocities simple imprisonment.
Act), 1989.
Section 323 IPC One year simple imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in
default to undergo three months
simple imprisonment.
Section 355 IPC One year simple imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, and in
default to undergo three months
simple imprisonment.
Section 506(i) IPC One year simple imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in
default to undergo three months
simple imprisonment.
The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently and
the period of custody already undergone by the appellant was
ordered to be set-off u/s.428 Cr.PC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
2.Heard Mr.V.S.Sivasundaram, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr.L.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl Side) for the respondent.
3.During the pendency of this criminal appeal, the parties have entered into a
compromise since all of them belong to the same village. The compromise agreement
entered into between the appellant and the complainant (PW.1) was also placed before
this Court and it has been signed by the respective parties in the presence of
witnesses.
4.This Court directed the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) to take
instructions from the respondent police with regard to the compromise entered into
between the parties. Mr.K.Karthik, Sub Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur PS, Kallakurichi
(DT), Mobile No.(8072205984), was present before the Court. The learned
Government Advocate (Crl.side), on instructions from the concerned police officer,
confirmed the fact that the appellant and PW.1 entered into a compromise agreement.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) also produced the letter given by the
complainant (PW.1) to the Inspector of Police, Thirunavalur Police Station, to the effect
that he has already compromised the dispute with the appellant.
5.In view of the above, the compromise agreement dated 27.10.2018 is taken
on file and it is acted upon.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
6.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramawatar .v. State of Madhya Pradesh
reported in 2021 SC online SC 966 has dealt with cases where parties compromise
their dispute in cases involving offence under the S/SC Act. It was held as follows:
“18. We may hasten to add that in cases such as the present, the
Courts ought to be even more vigilant to ensure that the complainant -
victim has entered into the compromise on the volition of his/her free
will and not on account of any duress. It cannot be understated that
since members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe belong to
the weaker sections of our country, they are more prone to acts of
coercion, and therefore ought to be accorded a higher level of
protection. If the Courts find even a hint of compulsion or force, no
relief can be given to the accused party. What factors the Courts should
consider, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
19. Having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances of
the present case in light of the afore-stated principles, as well as having
meditated on the application for compromise, we are inclined to invoke
the powers under Article 142 and quash the instant Criminal
proceedings with the sole objective of doing complete justice between
the parties before us. We say so for the reasons that:
Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST is
to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with
the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to
the Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case,
the record manifests that there was an undeniable pr-existing civil
dispute between the parties. The case of the Appellant, from the very
beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on
account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the
genesis of the deprecated incident was the afore-stated civil/property
dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not
be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even
though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the
present case.
Secondly, the offence in question, for which the Appellant has
been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim
of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from
atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that
although the Appellant may not belong to the same caste as the
Complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section
of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social
position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence
of segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their
quartes only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the
Appellant and the Complainant lived in adjoining houses. Therefore,
keeping in mind the socio-economic status of the Appellant, we are of
the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be
overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed.
Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994.
Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported
compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties.
The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other
occurrence that would lead us to believe that the Appellant is either a
repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired.
Fourthly, the Complainant has, on her own free will, without
any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the
present criminal proceedings against the accused.
Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the
trial against the Appellant had been concluded.
Sixthly, the Appellant and the Complainant parties are residents
of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily
settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of
healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to
effectuate the present settlement.
7.It is clear from the above that in appropriate cases, the compromise between
the parties can be acted upon even when the offence involved is under the SC/ST Act.
8.In the instant case, the incident is said to have taken place in the year 2015.
The parties belonged to the same Village. In order to maintain a cordial relationship,
the parties have decided to compromise the dispute among themselves. The same will
help in maintaining the peace and harmony and to do complete justice between the
parties. Prolonging this dispute will only revive the healed wounds. Hence, this Court
is inclined to act upon the compromise between the parties and set aside the conviction
and sentence imposed by the Court below.
9.In the light of the above discussion, the judgment and order of conviction and
sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Act, Villupuram in
Special S.C.No.87 of 2016, dated 07.03.2017, is hereby set aside on the basis of the
compromise between the parties. The appellant was enlarged on bail during the
pendency of this criminal appeal. The bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand
cancelled.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
10.This Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
05.04.2023
KP
Internet : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order:Yes/No
Neutral Citation :Yes/No
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Ulundurpet Sub Division
Thirunavalur Police Station.
2.Sessions Judge,
Special Court for exclusive trial of cases
under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
Villupuram.
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
KP
Crl.A.No.151 of 2017
05.04.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
