Madras High Court
Velmurugan vs The State Through on 7 April, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.128 of 2019
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 09.12.2024
Pronounced on : 07.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.128 of 2019
Velmurugan ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
1.The State through,
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Manamadurai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppuvanam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
In Crime No.89 of 2005.
3.Indira ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(1) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment passed by
the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Sivagangai, in Spl.S.C.No.
342 of 2009 dated 03.12.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Aju Tagore
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor (for R1 & R2)
Assisted by Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.128 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The appellant/sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009, on the file
of the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Sivagangai, filed this
appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, in
Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009, dated 03.12.2018, by the learned Special Judge for
SC/ST Act cases, Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant.
2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case reads as follows:
On 17.02.2005, at about 06.00 p.m., due to previous enmity,
when the defacto complainant was sprinkling water on the floor in front of
her house situated at Chinnavalayankulam, the accused is said to have
abused the defacto complainant by calling her caste name. When the same
was questioned by the defacto complainant, the appellant assaulted her with
a wooden log on her head and caused simple injury. On hearing the alarm
made by P.W.1, P.W.2, who is the daughter of P.W.1 came there and tried to
prevent the assault. In that process, she also sustained simple injury. Based
on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.8. The same
was registered in Crime No.89 of 2005, for the offences under Sections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
294(b) and 323 of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to
as “SC/ST Act”). Thereafter, P.W.11 conducted the investigation and filed
the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.14 of 2005 by
the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai.
3.On appearance of the appellant, copies of documents relied by
the prosecution were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, found that the offence under
Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, is triable only by the Sessions Court and
committed the case under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C., to the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. Thereafter, the case was
taken on file in Special S.C.No.15 of 2006. Then, he framed the necessary
charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and
pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. Thereafter, the case was transferred
from learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, to the
learned District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, and the same was taken on
file in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11
and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Thereafter, the appellant
was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after disclosing the
incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same as false and
thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither
produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on their side.
5. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and
also hearing the argument of the appellant, the learned trial Judge has
passed the impugned order, dated 03.12.2018, and found the appellant
guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:-
Accused Convicted Sentence of Imprisonment/
under Section fine imposed
Sole 294(b) of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to
accused undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
month.
323 of IPC (2 to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
counts) undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
month.(2 counts)
3(1)(x) of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year
SC/ST Act, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default
1989 to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
6. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the
appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
7.This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the
records and the impugned judgment and the precedents relied upon by the
appellant.
8.Discussion on the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
Act:-
According to the appellant, due to the motive, a false complaint
was foisted against him and the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the
appellant scolded them by using their caste name is a false one. He further
submitted that the same was not in public view. To consider the said
submission i.e., whether the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, is
made out, this Court recapitulated the principle laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State
Through Sanding Counsel and Another reported in 2008 8 SCC 435 and
the same is gave the following definition for 'Public View':-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
“Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view.”
8.1. The above said ratio, laid down by the Hon'ble two Judges
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was confirmed by the Hon'ble
three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand And Another reported in (2020) 10
SCC 710. The relevant portion of the above said judgment is as follows:-
“what is to be regarded as “place in Public
view” had come up for consideration before this Court in
the judgment reported as Swaran Singh V. State. The Court
had drawn distinction between the expression “public
place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held
that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g in a
lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by
someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall,
then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public
view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
since it is not in the public view(sic).”
8.2. The same has reiterated in the case of Priti Agarwally and
Others Vs. State of GNCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 973 and the learned Judge of this Court in Crl.A.234 of 2011
dated 02.08.2024 considered the entire case law has held as follows:-
Para No.33 Para No.30
it is implicitly clear that the expression From the above ratio laid down by the
“within public view” should be Apex Court, it is manifest that it is not
construed to mean that the insult or the place which has significance in the
humiliation must take place in the term “in any place within public view”
presence of or in the proximity of and what is more material therein is
atleast one independent person “within public view”, which literally
means that in the said place, excluding
relatives or friends, there should be
presence of other persons, who are
independent of the occasion and who
could be termed to be public who could
witness the happenings in the said place
8.3. In this case, no independent witnesses have been examined to
prove the allegation against the appellant that he scolded P.W.1 by calling
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
her caste name in the public view is not established beyond reasonable
doubt. Further, the above such allegation is without any evidence of
corroborative nature.
8.4. Apart from that, in view of the strange relationship, the case
of the appellant that the defacto complainant falsely made a submission
before the respondent police as if he scolded her by calling her caste name is
not accepted one. P.W.4 was examined as independent witnesses. He has not
supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the offence under Section
3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would not attract as against the appellant. Hence,
the same is liable to be set aside.
9. Discussion on the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC:-
To prove the offence under Section 294(b), the prosecution must
be proved the following ingredients as stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal & Another Vs
K.Lalitha (2022 Live Law (SC) 844). para 41:-
“Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot
attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC. To prove the offence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
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. No one has
spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence
of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellants
accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the
offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is made out”.
9.1. In this case, according to P.W.1, the appellant scolded her “as
a criminal” on the account of her in the murder case. In her cross-
examination, she admitted that there is a criminal case under Section 302
IPC pending against her. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.1 and
neither finds any utterance of words obscene words or abusive or
humiliation or defamative words in her evidence. Therefore, no material
allegation found in the deposition of P.W.1 to constitute the offence under
Section 294(b) of IPC. Further, this Court finds no material averments to
cause annoyance to P.W.1. Hence, in all aspects, this Court is not inclined to
accept the finding of the learned trial Judge relating to the conviction under
Section 294(b) of IPC against the appellant and the same is liable to be set
aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
9.2. The offence under Section 323 (2 Counts) of IPC is
concerned, P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the injury caused by the
appellant and the same was corroborated with the medical evidence.
Therefore, this Court concurs with the finding of the learned trial Judge that
the appellant caused injuries to them.
10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and
sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases,
Sivagangai, in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009, dated 03.12.2018, for the offences
under Sections 294(b) of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989, is hereby set
aside and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant for the
offence under Section 323 of IPC is confirmed. Fine amount paid by the
appellant for the offence under Sections 294(b) of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
Act, 1989, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Bail bond executed
by the appellant shall stand cancelled.
07.04.2025
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
dss
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
To:
1.The Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases,
Sivagangai,
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Manamadurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppuvanam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
5.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section(Records),
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:09 pm )
