Madras High Court

Karuppusamy vs State Rep By on 14 November, 2024

                                                                           CRL.A(MD).No.142 of 2020


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT


                                        Reserved On      :   12.11.2024
                                       Pronounced On     :    14.11.2024


                                                      CORAM

                           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN

                                           CRL.A(MD).No.142 of 2020

                    Karuppusamy                                 ... Appellant/Sole Accused


                                                       Vs.

                    State rep by,
                    The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
                    Ottanchatiram Sub Division,
                    Ambilikai Police Station,
                    Dindigul District.
                    (In Crime No.83 of 2016)                     ... Respondent/Complainant

                    Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to
                    call for the records relating to the judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.30 of
                    2019 dated 07.02.2020 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for
                    Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,
                    Dindigul and set aside the same and acquit the appellant/accused from all
                    charges levelled against him.
                                  For Appellant        : Mr.R.Venkateswaran
                                  For Respondent       : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
                                                         Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

                   1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                             CRL.A(MD).No.142 of 2020


                                                      JUDGMENT

This appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and conviction

passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled

Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Dindigul, in

Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2019, dated 07.02.2020, and acquit the appellant.

2.The appellant, who is the sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2019

on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled

Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Dindigul,

has filed this appeal, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on

him for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC, by the

impugned order dated 07.02.2020.

3. Prosecution Case:-

According to the prosecution, on 21.04.2016 at 07.00 a.m, when

P.W.2 was defecating on the road side after parking his bike, the appellant,

who passed through that way, is said to have abused P.W.2 for defecating

in his garden and insisted P.W.2 to remove the same by using hands.

Further, he threatened him that if he failed to do the same, he would not

give the bike key to him. Without knowing any other way, P.W.2 removed

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

the feces by hands. However, the appellant did not give the bike key. After

repeated demand, the appellant threw away the bike key on the floor by

abusing him in filthy language and threatening him with dire

consequences. Thereafter, P.W.2, reached his house and informed P.W.1,

father of P.W.2. On hearing the same, P.W.1 along with P.W.2 went to the

garden of the appellant and questioned the appellant about the alleged

occurrence. At that time also, the appellant abused them in filthy language

and threatened them with dire consequences. Hence, they informed the

occurrence to the brother of the appellant. Since there was no answer from

the brother of the appellant, on the same day of the occurrence, they went

to the respondent Police Station at 10.00 p.m, and lodged a complaint to

P.W.8. Thereafter, a case in Crime No.83 of 2016 was registered for the

punishable offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC r/w Section

3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes) Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act. The Investigating Officer, conducted the

investigation and arrested the accused. After completion of investigation,

final report was filed before the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for

Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases,

Dindigul, and the same was taken on file in Special Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2019.

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

3.1.After taking cognizance, the learned trial Judge framed the

charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 294(b) (2

Counts) and 506(i) (2 Counts) of IPC and Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes) Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment

Act. On the basis of charges, the learned trial Judge, questioned the

appellant and the appellant pleaded not guilty and hence, the trial was

conducted and the prosecution adduced the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.9 and

marked the documents under Ex.P1 to Ex.P.6.

3.2. The learned trial Judge, considered the same, examined the

appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., by putting the incriminating materials

available against him and he denied the same and hence, the case was

posted for examination for the defence witness. On the side of defence, no

witness was examined and no document was marked.

3.3. The learned trial Judge after considering the oral and

documentary evidence, convicted the accused for the offence under

Sections 294(b) (2 Counts) and 506(i) (2 Counts) of IPC and acquitted him

from the offence under Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, by the

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

impugned order dated 07.07.2020 and sentenced him to undergo 2 months

simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundred

only) in default, to undergo, 2 weeks simple imprisonment for the offence

under Section 294(b) of IPC (2 Counts) for each count and sentenced him

to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-

(Rupees Five Hundred only) in default, to undergo one month simple

imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC (2 Counts) for

each count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The fine

amount imposed upon the appellant was paid by him.

4.Aggrieved over the same, the appellant filed this appeal on the

grounds stated in the memorandum of grounds of appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that no

ingredients are available to make out the case for the offences under

sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. Once the learned trial Judge acquitted

the appellant from the offence under Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled

Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, there is

no further material to convict the appellant either under sections 294(b) or

506(i) of IPC. Hence, he seeks to acquit the appellant from the charges

under sections 294(b) or 506(i) of IPC.

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

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent

upon perusal of the other materials submitted that the necessary ingredients

are available from the evidence of the P.W.1 and P.W.2 to constitute the

offence under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC since they had categorically

deposed about the criminal intimidation and abuse made by the appellant.

Hence, the learned trial Judge correctly convicted the appellant for the

above said alleged offences and he seeks to confirm the conviction and

sentence imposed against the appellant by the trial Court.

7. Even though, notice has been served upon the defacto

complainant, no one appeared on behalf of him.

8. This Court has perused the records and the impugned judgment

passed by the learned trial Judge.

9. According to the prosecution, on 21.04.2016, at about 07.00 a.m,

P.W.2 defecated in the garden of the appellant. At that time, the appellant

came there and abused P.W.2 in filthy language and also criminally

intimidated to remove the feces by hands. The learned trial Judge, after

acquitting the appellant under Section 3(1)(i)(r)(s) of the Scheduled

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

Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act,

without any incriminating material, should not have convicted him under

Sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. Further, the following evidence of P.W.

2 does not constitute the offences, neither under section 294(b) nor under

Section 506(i) of IPC.

“vd; mg;gh vjphpaplk; Vd; ,g;go bra;jPh;fs; vd;W nfl;lhh;. cd; kfd; vd; njhl;lj;jpy; te;J kyk; fHpj;jhy; ,g;goj;jhd; bra;ntd; vd;W brhd;dhh;. cd;dhy; Koe;jij ghh;j;Jf;bfhs; vd;W brhd;dhh;. Vd; jfg;gdhiua[k;

thh;j;ijfshy; ngrpdhh;.”

9.1. A judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of

Dr.Subramanian Swamy Vs. C.Pushparaj reported in 1998 SCC Online

Mad 67, has held as follows:-

“An insult even if gross one is not an offence in itself under Section 504, IPC. Part II of Sec. 506, IPC is attracted if the criminal intimidation includes threat to cause death or grievous hurt. Mere outburst is not sufficient to hold that it would fall within the mischief of Sec. 506, IPC. In the instant case, the averment in the complaint and the statements in the depositions, if taken together, there are no allegations in the whole complaint that the petitioner ever made any attempt or did any act

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

in pursuance of his alleged expression. So also, the actual words used or supposed to have been used by the petitioner is not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. Regarding criminal intimidation to whom it was intended, whether alarm was caused, it so, what are the actual words employed are not stated either in the complaint or in the depositions. In the absence of these averments touching the ingredients, mere mentioning of sections and putting a person to face the trial is nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court.”

9.2. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Parminder Kaur v. State of Punjab, reported in (2020) 8 SCC

811, if no assault was made, which was the material ingredient of Section

506 (i) of IPC. In the case of Manik Taneja and another Vs. State of

Karnataka and another reported in 2015 [7] SCC 423 it has been held as

follows:-

“Threat must be intention to cause alarm to the complainant to cause that person to do or omit to do any work. Mere expressions of any words, without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient to bring in the application of this Section.”

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

9.3. A judgement in the case of Noble Mohandass Vs. State,

reported in 1988 [2] MWN Crl 184, has held as follows:

“Threat should be a real one and not just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom thereat is launched does not feel threatened actually.”

9.4. By applying the above principles, this Court finds no

ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC.

10. In so far as the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is

concerned, a judgement in the case of K.Jeyaramanuju Vs. Janakaraj &

anr., reported in 1996(1) CTC 470, has held as follows:-

"To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case”.

10.1. With out uttering of obscene words which would cause

annoyance, the offence under Section 294(b) IPC is not made out. The

Hone'ble Supreme Court of India in the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

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

Court in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal and another Vs. K.Lalitha (2022

LiveLaw(SC) 844), has held as follows: "

... the test of obscenity is this, whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences". This test has been uniformly followed in India. The Supreme Court has accepted the correctness of the test in Ranjit D.Udeshi V.State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965 SC 881. In Samuel Roth V. U.S.A., 354 US 476(1957), Chief Justice Warren said that the test of 'obscenity' is the "substantial tendency to corrupt by arousing lustful desires". Mr.Justice Harian observed that in order to be 'obscene' the matter must 'tend to sexually impure thoughts". I do not think that the words uttered in this case have such a tendency. It may be that the words are defamatory of the complainant, but I do not think that the words are 'obscene' and the utterance would constitute an offence punishable under S.294(b) IPC. "

10.2. On going through the evidence of the witnesses, P.W.1 and

P.W.2 it did not satisfy the ingredients of the offences under Section 294(b)

of IPC.

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

11. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this

Court is of the considered view that no ingredients are found to make out

the case for the offences under sections 294(b) and 506(i) of IPC. Hence,

this court is inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed

against the appellant.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in the following terms:

12.1.The judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Dindigul, in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2019, dated 07.02.2020, is set aside.

12.2.The appellant is acquitted from all the charges in Spl.S.C.No.30 of 2019, dated 07.02.2020, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Dindigul.