Madras High Court
Ganesh vs State Rep By on 30 April, 2025
Crl.A(MD)No.133 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 09.12.2024
Pronounced on : 30.04.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
CRL.A.(MD)No.133 of 2019
1.Ganesh
2.Prabhakaran
3.Tamil @ Tamilarasi ... Appellants
vs.
1.State Rep by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirupathur Division,
Tirukohstiyoor Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
(Crime No.71 of 2011)
2.Panchavaram ...Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of
Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.44 of
2012 dated 15.03.2019, on the file of the Special Court PRC Cases
(Sessions Court) Sivagangai, set aside the same and acquit the
appellant/accused Nos.1 and 3 herein.
Page 1/19
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.133 of 2019
For Appellants :Mr.J.Jeyakumaran
For Respondents :Mr.M.Sakthikumar
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
for R1
:Mrs.D.Saranya
Legal-Aid-Counsel for R2
*****
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction
and sentence imposed against the appellants in S.C.No.44 of 2012
by judgment dated 15.03.2019, by the learned Sessions Judge,
Special Court for PRC Cases (Sessions Court), Sivagangai.
2.The accused in S.C.No.44 of 2012, on the file learned
Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for PRC Cases, Sivagangai District
have filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the following
conviction and sentence imposed on them by the impugned
judgment dated 15.03.2019 in S.C.No.44 of 2012, by the learned
Judge, Special Court for PRC Cases, Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
Sl. Accused Offence Punishable Sentence of Imprisonment and
No No. under Section fine
1 A1 & A2 294(b) of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo 1 month
rigorous imprisonment.
2 A1 & A2 323 of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo 1 month
rigorous imprisonment.
3 A1 & A2 354 of IPC 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo 1 month
Rigorous imprisonment.
4 A1 & A2 3(1)(X) of SC/ST 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment
Act, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo 1 month
Rigorous imprisonment.
5 A1 & A2 3(1)(Xi) of SC/ST 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment
Act, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo 1 month
Rigorous imprisonment.
6 A3 294(b) of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo 1 month
rigorous imprisonment.
7 A3 3(1)(X) of SC/ST 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment
Act, and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo 1 month
Rigorous imprisonment.
3.On 19.10.2011 at about 05.00 p.m., while P.W.1 was
returning home after grazing cattle A1 to A3 had abused her with
filthy language and insulted her by her caste name and A1 had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
caught hold the hair of P.W.1 and had beaten her with hands and
when P.W.2 her mother in law came to her rescue A3 & A2 had
beaten her with hands. Hence a case was registered in Crime No.
71 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent police for the alleged
offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 354 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(X), 3(1)(Xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. After
investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report before
the Special Court for PCR Cases, Sivagangai. The same was taken
on file in S.C.No.44 of 2012.
4.In the meantime, A1 herein has given a complaint in this
regard at the very same police station, which was taken on file in
Crime No.70 of 2011 and after conducting investigation, final
report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirupthur.
The same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.32 of 2013. On 13.11.2014,
the same was dismissed.
5.After appearance of the accused, copies of records were
furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special
Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the
accused/appellants, framed charges under Sections 294(b), 323,
354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X), 3(1)(Xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and
the same were read over and explained to them and on being
questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and
pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined
16 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and exhibited 12 documents as
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and no material objects were marked. On the
side of the appellant D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was
marked.
7.The learned Trial Judge after completion of the
examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the
appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating
materials available against them in the prosecution evidence and
the appellants denied as false. The learned trial judge, after
considering the same, convicted the appellants as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
8.The learned counsel for the appellants made the
following submissions:
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on
the same day, 19.10.2011, at 05.00 pm., P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4
herein had abused the first appellant herein with filthy language
and had beaten A1 with slippers. A1 herein had given a complaint
in this regard at the very same police station, which was taken on
file in Crime No.70 of 2011 and the same was tried as S.T.C. No.32
of 2013 dated 13.11.2014, before the learned Judicial Magistrate,
Tirupathur and ended in acquittal, and this case is the counter
case for the same crime number.
8.1.P.W.1 in her cross examination had categorically
admitted that she is converted to Christianity and she goes to
church and in such a case, entire prosecution failed since this
benevolent provision of SC/ST Act is only for Hindu SC/ST
people.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
8.2.P.W.1 and P.W.2 had never stated that they were
insulted by using their caste in public view and that any other
third persons witnessed the same and on this ground also the
benefit should be given.
Therefore, he seeks to allow this appeal by acquitting the
appellants herein.
9.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the
following submissions:
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that
there was a specific averment in the complaint relating to the
abuse of the caste name. The Court below was correct in
convicting the appellant for the charged offenses. Therefore, he
seeks to confirm the Judgment passed by the Court below.
10. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned
Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
perused the materials available on record and also the precedents
relied upon by them.
11. The question in this case is whether the prosecution has
established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the
appellant and the Learned trial judge's conviction and sentence is
sustainable or not?
12.It is the specific case of the appellant that prior to the date
of occurrence, P.W.1's husband P.W.4, who he is an electrician, is
said to have fixed the light in the electricity post, and the same
was questioned by the appellant. Thereafter, there was some
quarrel between them. Subsequently, on 19.10.2011, at about 05.00
pm., P.W.1 was returning to her house after grazing her cattle
when the accused is said to have assaulted her by abusing her
caste name, and also he assaulted P.W.3 when she intervened in
the said occurrence. But, according to the appellant, P.W.2 and his
son assaulted the appellant with slippers for the reason that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
questioned him on 17.10.2011. To prove the said fact, they
produced Ex.D1 and also examined D.W.1. D.W.1 clearly deposed
that both P.W.1 and P.W.4 assaulted the first appellant with
slippers. Therefore, he gave a complaint, and the same was
registered in crime No.70 of 2011 for the offenses under Sections
341, 294(b), and 354 of IPC. The same was admitted by P.W.1 in
her cross-examination, which reads as follows:
md;iwa jpdk; mNj Neuj;jpy; 1 tJ
vjphpia ehDk; vd; fztUk; vd; khkpahUk;
topkwpj;J 17.10.2011 k; Njjp Vd; fuz;L NghLtJ
rk;ke;jkhf jfwhW nra;jhh; vd;W jpl;b fPo;jukhd
mrpq;fkhd thh;j;ijfshy; nfhr;irahf Ngrp
nrUg;Gfshy; mbj;J mJ rk;ge;jkhf 1 tJ vjphp
jpUf;Nfh\;bAh; fhty;epiyaj;jpy; tof;F
nfhLj;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
13.Similarly, P.W.3 also admitted the same, which is as
follows:
cz;ikapy; md;iwa jpdk; 1 tJ vjphpia
vd; kfd; kUkfs; kiztp MfpNahh; Nrh;e;J
jhf;fp mjdhy; ehq;fs; Gfhh; nfhLg;gjw;F Kd;Ng
1 tJ vjphp Gfhh; nfhLj;jpUe;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
14.P.W.4 also confirmed the same, which is as follows:
ehd; md;W neLkuNk Nghftpy;iy vd;Wk;
khiy 5.00 kzpastpy; ehd; vd; kidtp vd;
jhahh; %tUk; Nrh;e;J 17.10.2011 Ngh];l; kuj;jpy;
Vwf;$lhJ vd;W $wpa rk;gtj;ij itj;J
ehq;fs; 1 tJ vjphpia nrUg;ghy;jhf;fp mjw;fhf
mth;fs; Gfhh; nfhLj;Js;shh;fs; vd;W
nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;. me;j tof;F jpUg;gj;Jhh;
ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapy; cs;sJ vd;W
nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.
15.From the above evidence, it appears that P.W.1
suppressed the entire fact. In the said circumstances, this Court
further perused the evidence of D.W.1; in the cross-examination,
they put a suggestion that the case ended in acquittal.
Considering the above facts, this Court comes to the conclusion
that the prosecution has suppressed the material facts.
Prosecution witnesses suppressed the genesis of the occurrence,
and hence, this Court inclines to hold that the prosecution
miserably failed to prove the allegation made against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
appellants to constitute the charged offense. P.W.1 in his cross-
examination admitted as follows:
ehq;fs; fpwp];jt rh;r;Rf;F nrd;W
n[gk; nra;Nthk; ehq;fs; fpU];jt kjj;ij
Nrh;e;jth;fs; vd;W nrhd;dhy; rhpjhd;.
16.From the above reading of evidence, the charge under the
Special Act, namely, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, is not made out.
Apart from that, all the prosecution witnesses clearly deposed
that in the said village there is no discrimination on the basis of
caste. In the said circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2
that the appellant scolded them by using the caste name is
unbelievable, and in the considered opinion of this Court their
evidence lacks the credibility and trustworthiness. The relevant
evidence is as follows:
vq;fs; Chpy; cs;s midj;J jug;G
[hjpapdUk; Ngjk; ,d;wp ,d;whfjhd; ,Ue;J
tUfpwhh;fs;.
vq;fs; Chpy; ,Jtiu [hjp Fwpj;J
gpur;rid nra;J ve;j tof;Fk; eilngwtpy;iy
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
vy;yh [hjpapdUk; xw;Wikahfj;jhd; trpj;J
tUfpd;Nwhk;.
Rs;sf;Fb Chpy; vy;yh [hjp Nrhe;jth;fs;
xw;Wikahf ,Ue;J tUfpwhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;.
,Jtiuapy; vq;fs; Chpy; gp rp Mh; tof;F
vJTk; gjpT nra;atpy;iy vd;W nrhd;dhy;
rhpjhd;.
17.In view of the above evidence, the case of P.W.1 and P.W.
2 against the appellant is not acceptable. They made such false
allegations only to escape from the registration of the FIR against
them in Crime No.70 of 2011 for the alleged assault made against
the appellant with slippers. Therefore, the prosecution failed to
prove the charged offences.
18.Relating to the registration of the FIR, it is admittedly the
appellant's complaint is earlier in time. Thereafter, they made the
complaint belatedly, and the same is proved through the different
version relating to preferring of the complaint. P.W.1 deposed
that P.W.3 gave the complaint. P.W.1 deposed that she gave the
complaint. But P.W.3 deposed that he wrote the complaint. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the
ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) has not been
established by the prosecution. More particularly, the occurrence
have not taken place in public view as held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in various judgments and the same are as
follows:-
18.1.Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi Vs. The State of Odisha &
Another in SLP.(Crl.)No.1608 of 2020
“On a reading of the same, it is evident that the
intention to insult or intimidate with an intent to
humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribe must be “in any place within public
view”. There is no doubt that the second respondent
herein, is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The
question is, whether, the alleged utterances by the
appellant herein, was in any place within public view.
It is noted that when the second respondent sought to
repair her house which is adjacent to the appellant's
house along with her employees (Labourers) and went
into the appellant's house without seeking his prior
permission, it was objected to by the appellant herein.
The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at
the backyard of the appellant's house. Backyard of a
private house cannot be within the public view. The
persons who accompanied the second respondent were
also the employees or the labour force she had engaged
for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
which is adjacent to the appellant's house. They
cannot also be termed as public in general.”
18.2. Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State Through Sanding
Counsel and Another reported in 2008 8 SCC 435
“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.”
18.3. 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
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).”
18.4. 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 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 From the above ratio laid down by the Apex
the expression “within Court, it is manifest that it is not the place
public view” should be which has significance in the term “in any
construed to mean that place within public view” and what is more
the insult or humiliation material therein is “within public view”,
must take place in the which literally means that in the said place,
presence of or in the excluding relatives or friends, there should
proximity of atleast one be presence of other persons, who are
independent person independent of the occasion and who could
be termed to be public who could witness the
happenings in the said place
19.Even as per the above evidence, there was no caste
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
discrimination in the said village. In view of that, this Court is
inclined to acquit the appellants under Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of
SC/ST Act. This Court holds that the prosecution has not proved
the offence of assault by A1 and A2 under Sections 323 and 324 of
IPC. This Court disbelieves the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that
the appellant scolded them abusing the caste name. They only
filed a false case against the remaining appellant in order to
escape from the allegation against him in crime No.70 of 2011 that
he had assaulted the first appellant with slippers.
20.In view of that, this Court is also inclined to hold that the
conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is not
maintainable. In view of the inherent infirmity in the prosecution
case relating to the registration of the complaint, this Court is
inclined to acquit the appellants.
21. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed on the
following terms:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
(i)the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed
against the appellants 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under
Sections 294(b), 323, 354 and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the
SC/ST Act 1989 and against the third appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 294(b) and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST
Act 1989, by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for PCR
Cases, Sivagangai, vide judgment dated 15.03.2019, is set aside
and the appellants are acquitted from all the charges framed
against them. Fine amount paid by the appellants shall be
refunded to them forthwith.
(ii)Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand
terminated. The appellants shall be released forthwith, if their
presence is not required in any other case.
30.04.2025
Index :Yes / No
Internet :Yes / No
NCC :Yes / No
sbn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
To
1.The Special Court PCR Act Cases,
Sivagangai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirupathur Division,
Tirukohstiyoor Police Station, Sivagangai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
4.The Section Officer,
Record Section (Criminal)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
30.04.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/04/2025 07:45:19 pm )
