Madras High Court
G.Deva Anand @ Devakumar vs State By on 19 October, 2024
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
Crl.A.No.734 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 18.09.2024
Pronounced on : 19.10.2024
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
Crl.A.No.734 of 2016
1.G.Deva Anand @ Devakumar
2.V.Parthiban
3.V.Pargunam .... Appellants / Accused 1-3
Vs
State by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kanai Police Station
Villupuram District.
Crime No.458 of 2012 .... Respondent / Complainant
Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 Cr.P.C., praying to call for the
records pertaining to the judgment rendered by the Sessions Judge, Special Court
for Exclusive Trial of cases registered under the Scheduled Caste and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, Villupuram and District in
Special Sessions Case No.169 of 2015, dated 07.10.2016 and set aside the same.
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.734 of 2016
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondent : Dr.C.E.Pratap
Govt Advocate [Criminal Side]
and Ms.J.R.Achana
For Defacto complainant : Mr.S.Arunprasath
Legal Aid counsel
JUDGMENT
A1 to A3 in Special Sessions Case No.169 of 2015 on the file of Special Court
for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Villupuram, have filed this
appeal challenging their conviction for offences under Sections 323 IPC and
Sec.3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The details of the sentence imposed by the
trial court is as below:
Accused Sentences imposed
A1 One year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence
under Section 323 of IPC., and one year simple imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A2 One year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence
under Section 323 of IPC., and one year simple imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default, to undergo simple
imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
A3 One year simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months for offence
under Section 323 of IPC., and one year simple imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.4,000/- and in default, to undergo simple
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Accused Sentences imposed
imprisonment for 3 months for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
2. The case of the prosecution is as below :
a) P.W.1 belonged to a scheduled caste community and was a school
going student. He used to come to school by Government bus. A1
had some previous differences with P.W.1 with regard to occupying a
seat in the bus.
b) In this backdrop, on 09.11.2012 at around 6.00 p.m., all the three
accused along with P.W.1 to P.W.5 were traveling in the same bus.
While so P.W.3 alighted at Kappur Mariamman Koil bus stop. In the
process, he stepped on the feet of A3 and A3 pushed him aside and
abused him.
c) P.W.1 would now intervene to pacify, but A1 would now abuse P.W.1,
which included a reference to the community of P.W.1. He also
punched on the left eyebrow of P.W.1. A2 beat P.W.1 both on his back
and chest, while A3 beat him on the left chin with a stalk. A3 also bit
P.W.2 about his right hip.
d) The injured were taken to the hospital where P.W.8 and P.W.9 attended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to P.W.1 and P.W.2, and issued Ext.P2 and Ext.P3, accident registers.
e) A complaint came to be given on the following date and an FIR came
to be registered in Crime No.458 of 2012.
f) The case was taken over for investigation by P.W.11, who visited the
scene of occurrence, prepared Ext.P7, observation mahazar and Ext.P8,
rough sketch.
g) In the course of investigation P.W.7 was transferred and the
investigation was taken over by P.W.12. After completing the
evidence, he laid the final report.
3.1 The case was committed to the designated Special Court of Sessions and the
Court framed the following charges against the accused persons :
Accused Charges framed
A1 Sections 294B, 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act
A2 Sections 323 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act
A3 Sections 323 & 325 IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act
3.2 During trial, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12, and marked Ext.P1
to Ext.P9. Of all the five witnesses, who were examined as eye witnesses, P.W.4
and P.W.5 turned hostile. On its appreciation of evidence, the trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
convicted all the three appellants as outlined in the opening paragraph of this
judgment. This judgment is now under challenge.
3.3 The trial Court however found A3 not guilty of the offence punishable under
Section 325 of IPC, as the same has not been proved by prosecution.
4. The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions :
a) So far as allegation under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act is
concerned, even as per prosecution case, A1 had abused P.W.1 with
reference to his community. However, during trial neither P.W.1 nor
P.W.3 ever made a statement that any of the accused had abused them
with reference to their community. Only P.W.2 speaks to that, though
all P.W.1 to P.W.3 were together. Inasmuch as P.W.1 and P.W.3 did
not even level any accusation as regards the charge under Section
3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the solitary statement of P.W.2 alone
cannot be considered.
b) So far as the offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, both sides
have compounded the offence and a memo is also filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Heard both sides. So far as compoundable part of the charge is concerned,
this Court enquired P.W.1 to P.W.3, and was satisfied that the offence is
compounded. After all, it is a compoundable offence, and the Court does not
intend to interfere with that.
6. Turning to the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the
submissions of the counsel for the appellants are not without merit. There is one
incident where A1 to A3 were on one side and P.W.1 to P.W.3 were on other
side, and the accusation is that A1 makes such abusive statement with reference
to the community to which P.W.1 belonged. When P.W.1 and P.W.3 were on
the receiving end of the crime, then this allegation requires mutual corroboration
as between them. Neither P.W.1 nor P.W.3 uttered a word implicating any of
the accused persons vis-a-vis the allegation that any of the accused persons had
abused any of them with reference to their community. Therefore, an
uncorroborated testimony of P.W.2 cannot be countenanced. This apart, this
Court also finds that the nature of injuries are simple, and the FIR has been
registered only at 11.00 a.m., on 10.11.2012, some 18 hours after the incident.
The facts to the extent shown do not inspire confidence that the appellants herein
have committed the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
7. In view of the same, this Court allows the appeal as there is no sufficient proof
that an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, had been committed,
and so far as the offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, since the offence
had been compounded the appellants are discharged of the charge. Accordingly,
the judgment of the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases registered under
the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
1989, Villupuram in Special Sessions Case No. 169 of 2015, dated 07.10.2016 is
hereby set aside.
19.10.2024
Index : Yes / No
Neutral Citation: Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
ds
To:
1.The Sessions Judge
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases
registered under SC/ST (POA) Act
Villupuram & District.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kanai Police Station
Villupuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
Pre-delivery Judgment in
19.10.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
