Madras High Court
Ravichandran vs The Deputy Superintendent Of Police on 7 April, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.540 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 11.12.2024
Pronounced on : 07.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.540 of 2018
and
Crl.MP(MD)No.10292 of 2018
1.Ravichandran
2.Boominathan ... Appellants/Accused
Vs.
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Manamadurai,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thiruppuvanam Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.998 of 2004) ... Respondents/Complainant
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal
Procedure Code, to call for the records from the learned Sessions Judge,
(PCR cases), Sivagangai, in S.C.No.109 of 2009, dated 14.11.2018 and
acquit the accused for an offence punishable under Sections 323(3), 324 of
IPC and 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act.
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.540 of 2018
For Appellants : Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For Respondents : Mr.Sakthi Kumar
(Government Advocate Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
The appellants, who are Accused Nos.1 and 2 in S.C.No.109 of
2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, (PCR Cases), Sivagangai,
have filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed
against them, in S.C.No.109 of 2009, dated14.11.2018, by the learned
Sessions Judge, (PCR Cases), Sivagangai, and acquit them.
2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case read as follows:
There was a civil dispute between the appellants and the defacto
complainant. Due to that motive, on 01.11.2004, at 08.00 a.m., when the
defacto complainant along with some other persons went to his agricultural
land, the appellants were engaged in some agricultural activities in the
disputed land. Since already, a suit is pending before the Sub Court,
Sivagangai, in connection with the disputed land, the said act of the
appellants was questioned by the defacto complainant, for which, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
appellants were said to have abused him in filthy language by using his
caste name and assaulted him with their hands. Due to which, he sustained
injuries. Then, the defacto complainant gave a complaint for the said
occurrence before P.W.11. The same was registered in Crime No.998 of
2004, for the offences under Sections 147, 355, 323, 324, 379 and 506(ii) of
IPC and 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.12 conducted the investigation and filed the final report.
The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.59 of 2009 by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai.
3.On appearance of the appellants, 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 District
and Sessions Court, Madurai. The case was taken on file in S.C.No.275 of
2007. Thereafter, the said case in S.C.No.275 of 2007 was transferred from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
learned District and Sessions Court, Madurai, to learned Sessions Judge
(PCR Cases), Sivagangai. The learned Sessions Judge (PCR cases),
Sivagangai, has taken it on file in S.C.No.109 of 2009. Then, he framed
necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the
charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12
and exhibited 18 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.18 and produced 1 material
object as M.O.1. Thereafter, the appellants were questioned under Section
313 Cr.P.C proceedings after disclosing the incriminating evidence against
them and they 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 appellants, the learned trial Judge has
passed the impugned order, dated 14.11.2018 and found the appellants
guilty, convicted and sentenced them as detailed below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
Accused Convicted under Sentence of Imprisonment/
Section fine imposed
A1 3(1)(x) of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to
SC/ST (POA), pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
Act, 1989, undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
month.
323 of IPC (3 To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of
counts) undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
month. (3 counts)
3(1)(x) of Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to
A2 SC/ST (POA) pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
Act, 1989 undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
month.
323 of IPC (2 To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of
counts) undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one
month. (2 counts)
324 of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two
months.
6. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the
appellants have preferred the present Criminal Appeals.
7. This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the
records and the impugned judgment and the precedents relied upon by the
appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
8. The father of the second appellant's name is Velusamy. He has
filed a suit in O.S.No.100 of 2002 against P.W.1 and his family members.
After obtaining decree, on 01.11.2004 at 08.00 a.m, the appellants were
engaged in cultivation activities, P.W.1 and his family members went to the
field and questioned the appellants and picked up a quarrel with them.
Therefore, there was a wordy altercation between the parties. As a result, the
appellants assaulted P.W.1 and his family members by abusing their caste
name. In the said occurrence, the appellants also sustained injuries and
hence, both lodged complaints against each other. Thereby, case and counter
cases were registered. P.W.4, the close relative of P.W.1 deposed that there
was civil dispute between the appellant's family and P.W.1's family. The first
appellant cultivated the land on the date of the occurrence and she also
admitted that the Velusamy purchased the property from her mother-in-law
and on the date of the occurrence also, the property was in possession and
enjoyment of the above said Velusamy. Further, she also admitted that the
decree was also granted in favour of the appellants' family. From her
evidence, it is clearly proved that even the relatives of P.W.1 have not
supported the prosecution case. P.W.3 never deposed that the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
scolded them by using their caste name. Therefore, this Court is unable to
find any truth in the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the appellants
scolded them by using their caste name without any corroboration with P.W.
3's evidence. Moreover, both the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 about the
scolding of their caste name by the appellants are also not corroborated by
any independent witness and hence, the prosecution failed to prove the
offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the ST/ST Act.
8.1. It is well settled law that unless the prosecution established
that the appellants scolded P.W.1 and P.W.3 by using caste name in public
view as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, conviction under
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, is not maintainable. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State
Through Standing Counsel and Another reported in 2008 8 SCC 435 has
held as follows':-
“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.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
8.2. 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
since it is not in the public view(sic).”
8.3. The same has been reiterated in the case of Priti Agarwally
and Others Vs. State of GNCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2024 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
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 and 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
8.4. In this case, no independent witnesses have been examined to
prove the allegation against the appellants that they scolded P.W.1 and P.W.2
by calling their caste name in the public view and hence, the prosecution
miserably failed to prove that the appellants scolded P.W.1 in the public
view as required under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
8.5. Apart from that, in view of the strained relationship, because
of civil case, the defacto complainant falsely made a complaint before the
respondent police as if they scolded him by calling his caste name is
probable one. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act
would not get attracted as against the appellants. Hence, the same is liable to
be set aside.
9. P.W.1 to 3 cogently deposed that the appellants assaulted with a
stick and caused simple injuries and the same corroborated with the
medical evidence and the Doctor, P.W.10, clearly deposed about the injury
and AR copy also was marked under Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.6. Therefore, the learned
trial Judge correctly convicted the first appellant for the offence under
Section 323 (3 Counts) of IPC and imposed the fine of Rs.1,000/- and
convicted the second appellant for the offence under Section 323 (2 Counts)
& 324 of IPC and imposed the fine of Rs.1,000/-.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on the
following terms:-
(i) The conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, (PCR cases), Sivagangai, in
S.C.No.109 of 2009, dated 14.11.2018, for the offence
under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, is hereby
set aside.
(ii) The conviction and sentence passed by
the learned Sessions Judge, (PCR cases), Sivagangai, in
S.C.No.109 of 2009, dated 14.11.2018, for the offences
under Sections 323 [(3) counts against the first
appellant and (2) counts [against the second appellant]
and 324 of IPC [against the second appellant], is
hereby confirmed.
(iii) Fine amount if any paid by the appellants
in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989, shall be refunded to them.
- Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
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 05:45:10 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
To:
1.The Sessions Judge, (PCR cases),
Sivagangai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Manamadurai, Sivagangai District.
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.
and
07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:10 pm )
