Madras High Court
Jayamani vs The Sate Represented By on 7 April, 2025
Crl.A.(MD).No.118 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 10.12.2024
Pronounced on : 07.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
Crl.A.(MD).No.118 of 2020
Jayamani ... Petitioner/Appellant/
Accused No.1
Vs.
1.The Sate represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppathur Taluk,
Thiruppathur, Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.40 of 2011) ... Respondent/Respondent/
Complainant
2.K.Dhanuskodi ... Respondent
(R2 impleaded as per order of this Court dated 16.03.2020 made
in Crl.M.P.(MD).No.2363 of 2020 in Crl.A.(MD)No.118 of 2020 by TKJ)
Page 1 of 12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
Crl.A.(MD).No.118 of 2020
PRAYER : Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of the
Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records and to set aside the order
passed in S.C.No.160 of 2011 dated 04.04.2019 on the file of P.C.R Court at
Sivagangai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Maharaja
For R1 : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
The appellant/Accused No.1 in S.C.No.160 of 2011, on the file of
the PCR Court, Sivagangai, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and
sentence imposed on him, in S.C.No.160 of 2011, dated 04.04.2019, by the
PCR Court, Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant.
2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case reads as follows:
2.1. Due to money dispute between the brother of the complainant
and the accused, on 22.06.2011, at about 04.00 p.m, when the defacto
complainant was proceeding towards his daughter's house, located at
Sowmianarayanapuram, Kurunji Nagar, the appellant and other two accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
are said to have accosted him and abused him in filthy language by calling
his caste name and also attacked him with their hands and a broom and
caused injuries. Further, they threatened him with dire consequences.
Thereafter, he was admitted in the Government hospital, Thirupathur. For
further treatment, he was shifted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai.
Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.6.
The same was registered in Crime No.40 of 2011, for the offences under
Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 355 and 506(i) 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.15 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur.
2.2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied by
the prosecution were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C.
The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, 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 PCR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
Court, Sivagangai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.160 of
2011. Then, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The
accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
2.3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12
and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and marked 1 material
object as M.O.1. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313
Cr.P.C proceedings after explaining 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.
2.4. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and
also hearing the argument of the appellant and the other accused, the learned
trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 04.04.2019 and found the
appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
Accused Convicted under Section Sentence of Imprisonment/
No.1 fine imposed
341 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in
default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month.
294(b) of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month.
323 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in
default to under Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month.
355 of PC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in
default to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month.
3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989 Rigorous Imprisonment for
one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for one month.
3. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the
appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.
4. This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the
records and the impugned judgment and the precedents relied upon by the
appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
5. According to the appellant, due to the motive, a false complaint
was foisted against him and the deposition of P.W.1 that the appellant along
with other accused scolded him by using his 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 recapitulates 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
and has given the following definition for 'Public View':-
“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.”
5.1. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
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).”
5.2. 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:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
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
6. In this case, no independent witnesses have been examined to
prove the allegation against the appellant that he scolded P.W.1 by calling
his caste name in the public view. Further, the above allegation is without
any evidence corroborative in nature.
7. Apart from that, the case of the appellant is that the defacto
complainant falsely made a submission before the respondent police as if he
scolded him by calling his caste name. The independent witnesses have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
been examined and they have 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.
8. PW1 deposed that when he was going to his daughter house
located Kurunji Nagar, near place of Kalmettu Medu, the appellant
intercepted and scolded and assaulted him with broom stick. The said
evidence is cogent and trustworthy. The said evidence is corroborated with
medical evidence, the doctor's PW19 clearly deposed about the injuries
sustained by PW1.
9. Therefore this court holds that the prosecution clearly proved to
offence under section 341, 294(b), 323, 355 of IPC beyond reasonable
doubt and confirms the conviction and sentence imposed against them under
section 341, 294(B), 323 and 355 of IPC.
10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on the
following terms:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
(i) The conviction and sentence passed by the
PCR Court, Sivagangai, in S.C.No.160 of 2011, dated
04.04.2019, 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 PCR Court, Sivagangai, in S.C.No.160 of 2011,
dated 04.04.2019, for the offences under Sections 341,
294(b), 323 and 355 of IPC, is hereby confirmed.
(iii)The fine amount paid by the appellant in
respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, 1989, shall be refunded to him.
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 05:45:08 pm )
To:
1.The P.C.R Court
Sivagangai.
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppathur Taluk, Thiruppathur,
Sivagangai 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 ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
dss
07.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 05:45:08 pm )
