Madras High Court
Egambaram vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 6 December, 2023
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED 06.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
1.Egambaram
2.Ramasamy ... Appellants/Accused Nos.2 & 4
in Crl.A.(MD).No.147 of 2020
1.Kuppusamy
2.Nallasamy ... Appellants/Accused Nos.1 & 3
in Crl.A.(MD).No.91 of 2020
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karur Rural Division,
Karur District.
2.Selvan ... Respondents (In both the cases)
(R2 is suo motu impleaded as per order
of this Court dated 14.11.2022.)
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
COMMON PRAYER : Criminal Appeals filed under Section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and conviction dated
27.01.2020, by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, in S.C.No.85 of 2018,
and acquit the appellants.
For Appellants : Mr.MA.Karunanithi
in Crl.A(MD).No.147 of 2020
For Appellants : Mr.G.Karnan
in Crl.A(MD).No.91 of 2020
st
For 1 Respondent : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
nd
For 2 Respondent : Mr.R.Gowri Shankar
Legal Aid Counsel
(in both the cases)
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Criminal Appeals have been filed to set aside the Judgment
and conviction dated 27.01.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Karur, in S.C.No.85 of 2018, and acquit the appellants.
2. Since the appellants in all the appeals are arrayed as accused
Nos.1 to 4 in the same crime number, these appeals are taken up together for
hearing and disposed by way of this common judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
3. The Brief facts of the prosecution case reads as follows:
On 16.05.2018, at about 11.30 a.m., the defacto complainant
namely Selvan, along with his younger son namely Abhimanyu were
returning to their house from their shop in a two wheeler. When they were
about to cross the place known as Ichipatti Pirivu, a car bearing Registration
No.TN 45 BA 1819 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and crossed
the bike very close to the bike, eventually, the defacto complainant stopped
his vehicle at the end of the road. Thereafter, the said car went ahead and
stopped at a distance of 150 metres near one Usini Thottam. The defacto
complainant and his son went there and questioned the driver of the car
about the rash and negligent driving, during which, the driver of the car
namely Kuppusamy (A1) has asked the defacto complainant whether he
belonged to Velambadi colony and questioned him whether he is a member
of Scheduled caste and also slapped him on his cheek. Thereafter, the said
Kuppusamy (A1) has kicked the defacto complainant's son by his leg. The
same was informed to the elder son of the defacto complainant through
phone. Within 10 minutes, the defacto complainant's elder brother namely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
Saravanan came there and questioned the said Kuppusamy (A1) about the
act. At that time, one Egambaram (A2) and one Nallusamy (A3), who were
there also scolded them by using caste name. Further, they were said to
have assaulted them by using wooden log and coconut leaf-stalk. At that
time, one Ramasamy (A4) came there and he threw a stone on the defacto
complainant and his sons. Thereafter, some of the villagers came there and
rescued them and sent them to the Hospital. Based on which, the defacto
complainant gave a complaint before P.W.13. The same was registered in
Crime No.171 of 2018, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 324,
336 and 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015,
(hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “SC/ST (POA) Act”).
Thereafter, P.W.14 conducted the investigation. During the course of
investigation, P.W.14 altered the case into under Sections 294(b), 323, 324,
336 and 506(ii) of IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Act. Thereafter, the final report was filed by P.W.14 before the trial Court.
After filing the final report, the same was taken on file in S.C.No.85 of 2018
by the learned Sessions Judge, Karur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
4. The learned trial Judge after appearance of the accused served
the copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. Then, he framed necessary charges and
questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not
guilty and stood for trial.
5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.14
and exhibited 21 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.21 and produced 3 material
objects as M.O.1 to M.O.3. Thereafter, all the accused were questioned
under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings putting the incriminating evidence
against them and they denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was
posted for defence evidence. On the side of the appellants neither the
defence witness was examined nor the documents were produced.
6. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and
also hearing the argument of the appellants and other accused, the learned
trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 27.01.2020 and found the
petitioners guilty, convicted and sentenced them as detailed below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
Accused Convicted under Sentence of
Section Imprisonment/
fine imposed
A1, A2, A3 and A4 Section 294(b) of IPC to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- each, in
default to undergo
Simple Imprisonment
for one month each.
A1 Section 323 of IPC (2 Rigorous Imprisonment
counts) r/w Section 3(2) for one year and to pay
(va) of SC/ST (POA) a fine of Rs.1,000/- (2
Act. counts), in default to
undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one
month.
A2 and A3 Section 323 of IPC (3 Rigorous Imprisonment
counts) r/w Section 3(2) for one year and to pay
(va) of SC/ST (POA) a fine of Rs.1,000/- (3
Act. counts), in default to
undergo Simple
Imprisonment for one
month.
A4 Section 323 of IPC r/w Rigorous Imprisonment
Section 3(2)(va) of for one year and to pay
SC/ST (POA) Act. a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default to undergo
Simple Imprisonment
for one month.
Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the petitioners have
preferred these present Criminal Appeals.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that
the learned trial judge erred in convicting the appellants under Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, after acquitting the appellant under
Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. He further submitted that
the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the offence under
Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. There is no material
against the appellants to convict them under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act.
7.1. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that
it is a counter case. The counter case ended into acquittal. Hence, the
conviction and sentence passed against the appellants under Section 3(2)
(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is not maintainable. According to the
prosecution, the occurrence took place without any premeditation and
without any intention. The occurrence took place suddenly when the
accused drove the car in a rash and negligence manner and crossed the bike,
which was driven by the defacto complainant. In the said occurrence, even
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
as per the evidence of the witnesses, they questioned the defacto
complainant only after ascertaining their place of residence. From that, it
can be informed that there was no evidence to show that they intentionally
caused humiliation against the defacto complainant regarding the caste. In
the said circumstances, the conviction and sentence passed by the learned
trial Judge is liable to be set aside. So far as the evidence under Sections
294(b) and 323 of IPC is concerned, the necessary ingredients are absent,
upon perusal of the entire evidence of the defacto complainant and others
witnesses. Hence, he seeks for acquittal.
8. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, upon perusal of the
materials placed before this Court and also judgment, submitted that even
though the learned trial Judge acquitted the appellants under Sections 3(1)
(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the appellants have a knowledge about
the defacto complainant's caste. Hence, the conviction under Section 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, is legally maintainable. He further submitted that
the acquittal in the counter case is not a ground to acquit this case. The
evidence of defacto complainant and other witnesses clearly prove the
charges framed against the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
8.1. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted
that the learned trial Judge considered the specific evidence available on
record and convicted the appellants for the alleged offence under Sections
294(b) and 323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Hence,
he seeks to confirm the conviction and sentence passed against the
appellants, by the learned trial judge.
9. The learned legal aid counsel appearing for the defacto
complainant reiterated the submission made by the learned Additional
public prosecutor and submitted that there is abundant evidence to show
that the appellants had knowledge about the caste status and residence of the
defacto complainant and hence, he seeks to confirm the sentence passed by
the learned trial Judge.
10. This Court perused the records and the documents adduced by
the prosecution and the grounds raised by the appellants and reply made by
the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the legal Aid Counsel and the
impugned judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
11. The occurrence took place on 16.05.2018 at 11.30 a.m., when
the car bearing Registration No.TN 45 BA 1819 was driven in a rash and
negligent manner by A1 herein and crossed close to the bike, which was
driven by the P.W.1/the defacto complainant and P.W.1 later, stopped the car.
Thereafter, the defacto complainant questioned the rash and negligent
driving of A1. At that time, A1 scolded P.W.1 by abusing his caste name
and also assaulted him with hands. In the said circumstances, the remaining
accused went to the occurrence place and there was a wordy altercation
between the parties. Hence, both the parties made a complaint before the
respondent Police with rival allegations. On the basis of the complaint given
by both the parties, the cases were registered. Thereafter, the investigation
was conducted and final report was filed. The counter case ended in
acquittal. In the present case, the learned trial Judge disbelieved the
evidence relating to abusing of the caste name under Section 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and convicted the appellant under Section
3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, which is not in accordance with law. When
their evidence is disbelieved by the learned trial judge relating to the caste
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
status, then it means that they had no knowledge about the caste of the
defacto complainant and other witnesses. According to P.W.2's evidence,
the first appellant in Crl.A(MD).No.91 of 2020 drove the vehicle in a rash
and negligent manner in the main road close to the two wheeler, which was
driven by P.W.1. Due to this, P.W.1 got annoyed. Hence, he questioned
appellant/A1. From the sequence of the above events, it is clear that the
appellants had no knowledge about the caste status of the P.W.1 and other
witnesses.
12. The evidence of the P.W.1 and other witnesses are concerned,
the appellant assaulted P.W.1 with hands. The investigating agency
investigated the matter and examined number of witnesses to prove the said
facts. In the said circumstances, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the
version of the P.W.1 relating to the conviction under Sections 294(b) and
323 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
13. The occurrence took place in a spur of moment, without
premeditation and intention to cause humiliation to the defacto complainant
and other members of the society.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
14. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case that there
was no intention and premeditation to cause humiliation to the defacto
complainant and others and also the fact that a settlement was arrived
between the parties, the conviction passed by the trial Court for the offence
under Sections 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act is set aside. Insofar as the
sentence for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC, is
concerned, the sentence imprisonment of the appellants, as ordered by the
Courts below, is reduced to the period already undergone by them.
15. Accordingly, these Criminal Appeals are partly allowed.
06.12.2023
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
vsg
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
To:
1.The learned Sessions Judge,
Karur.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Karur Rural Division,
Karur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
vsg
Crl.A.(MD).Nos.147 and 91 of 2020
06.12.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
