Madras High Court
Subash vs State Represented By on 6 February, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.1274 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.1274 of 2022
Subash ... Appellant
Vs.
1.State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Arakkonam Sub Division,
Nemili Police Station,
Vellore District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Nemili Police Station,
Vellore District.
[Crime No.355 of 2012]. ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes
and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to set aside the
order of conviction dated 09.11.2022 passed in Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2020 on
the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for trial of Cases under
SC/ST (POA) Act, Vellore, Vellore District and acquit the appellant.
For Appellant : Ms.M.Jisriga
for Mr.S.Ganeshkumar
For Respondent s : Mr.L.Baskaran
Government Advocate [Crl. Side]
Assisted by Ms.M.Sumi Arnica
Page No.1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.1274 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The appellant/accused was convicted by the Trial Court for the
offence under Sections 341 and 352 IPC by imposing a fine of Rs.500/- for
each of the offence and sentenced to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment
for each of the offence and sentenced to undergo one year simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property
(Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act [TNPDDL Act]. Against which, the
present appeal is filed.
2.The appellant was charged by the Trial Court for the offence under
Section 341 IPC r/w. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, Section 352 IPC,
Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act, Section 506(i) IPC r/w. 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST(POA) Act and Section 3 of TNPPDL Act. The Trial Court acquitted
the appellant from all the other charges except for the charges he was
convicted as stated above.
3.The gist of the case is that the defacto complainant Narasimman
who belongs to Adi Dravidar Community lodged a complaint on 14.08.2012
stating that he is the owner-cum-driver of an Auto bearing registration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
No.TN-73-Y-2990 and he is making his earnings through the said Auto. He
belongs to Duraiyur Colony, Arakkonam Taluk, there was a dispute with the
adjoining Village of Uliyanallur with regard to plying of Autos, due to
which there was no plying of Autos for the past four days. On 13.08.2012 in
the evening hours, the said Narasimman was transporting school students in
his Auto. Babu/P.W.1 and Perumal/P.W.2, the other Auto drivers were also
transporting school students in their Auto. When they were near Bajanai
Koil Street at about 5.15 p.m., the appellant/Subash restrained the said
Narasimman, picked up a quarrel and questioned him as to how the defacto
complainant and others are operating the Autos in their Village. Thereafter,
the appellant assaulted the defacto complainant Narasimman and damaged
the wind screen of the Auto and also threatened him not to venture into their
Village again. On the intervention of others, the said Narasimman was
saved and thereafter, complaint was lodged to the respondent police, who
registered a case in Crime No.355 of 2012 on 14.08.2012. On receipt of the
complaint, the Sub-Inspector of Police registered a case and finding that
investigation to be done by the Deputy Superintendent of Police since the
offence involves SC/ST Act, the case was placed before P.W.8 who was
authorized by the Superintendent of Police by authorization order/Ex.P9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Thereafter, P.W.8 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation
mahazar, rough sketch and recorded the statement of Narasimman/defacto
complainant, P.W.1/Babu, P.W.2/Perumal and other witnesses present in the
scene of occurrence, seized the broken wind screen and collected the
community certificate of the defacto complainant and the appellant. On
conclusion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During the trial, P.W.1 to
P.W.8 examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 marked and M.O.1 produced on the side
of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no
documents marked. The Trial Court on conclusion of trial convicted the
appellant as stated above.
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in this
case P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 are projected as eye witnesses. P.W.1,
an Auto driver admits that he has not given any statement to the Police.
Further the place of occurrence is a four road junction and there were several
other persons present in the scene of occurrence but none examined. He
further confirms that the defacto complainant Narasimman is his uncle and
the other witness, namely, P.W.2/Perumal is his brother by relation. P.W.2
similar to the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are the witnesses for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
observation mahazar. P.W.4 further improves his statement by stating that
he was present in the scene of occurrence. In this case the observation
mahazar and rough sketch are prepared on the next day of the incident,
P.W.3 and P.W.4 admit that their signature was obtained in the Police
Station in a white paper. P.W.4 admits that he is a relative to the said
Narasimman. P.W.7 further improves by stating that he travelled along with
P.W.2/Perumal in his Auto but P.W.2 does not state anything about P.W.7.
All the witnesses P.W.1,P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 are unable to give any
details of the said Narasimman’s auto. Hence, their presence is highly
doubtful. Further, in this case the value of the damage to the public
property is attempted to be proved through P.W.5, a Salesman at Ganpat
Motors, Perumugai. His evidence is that the said Narasimman on
18.08.2012 purchased a wind screen for his auto but in Ex.P5/Invoice of
Ganpat Motors, there is no reference to the Auto number of Narasimman.
Further, the signature found in Ex.P5 and the signature of P.W.5 are in
variance. Hence, Ex.P5 is a got-up document. Further, even admitting
Ex.P5 to be invoice for the purchase of wind screen for Auto, no way it
furthers the case of the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5.The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that
Ex.P7/complaint, Ex.P8/FIR, Ex.P10/observation mahazar and
Ex.P11/rough sketch marked through the Investigating Officer/P.W.8.
P.W.3 and P.W.4 have only identified their signature alone. No witness for
the seizure mahazar/Ex.P12 was examined to prove the seizure. In this case,
P.W.8 admits that though he had given a requisition to the Junior Engineer,
Motor Vehicle Department to assess the value of the damage he had not
collected particulars of damages. The Trial Court disbelieved the evidence
of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 with regard to certain offences but
convicted the appellant for the offence of wrongful restraint, threat and
damage to the public property. He further submitted that wrongful restraint
and threat is caused to the defacto complainant Narasimman but he was not
examined as witness. Further, the loss due to damage to the wind screen is
not proved in the manner known to law. Hence, prayed for acquittal.
6.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that in this
case on 13.08.2012, one Narasimman along with other auto drivers, namely,
P.W.2 and P.W.3, were plying their auto carrying school students in
Uliyanallur Village, at that time, the appellant is said to have questioned the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said Narasimman, who operated his Autos in the Village against the boycott
of Auto drivers of Uliyanallur village, assaulted the said Narasimman and
damaged the wind screen of his Auto. Thereafter, the said Narasimman
lodged a complaint to the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in
Crime No.355 of 2012 and thereafter, finding that the offence involves
SC/ST Act P.W.8/Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the
investigation, who was authorised by the Superintendent of Police through
Ex.P9/authorization order. P.W.8 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared
observation mahazar, rough sketch, recorded the statement of the defacto
complainant and other witnesses who were present in the scene of
occurrence, collected the damaged wind screen under the cover of mahazar,
Ex.P5/invoice for replacement of wind screen from Ganpat Motors and
community certificate of the said Narasimman collected. Thereafter, on
conclusion of investigation charge sheet filed. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.8
examined, Ex.P1 to Ex.P13 marked and M.O.1 produced. The Trial Court
on the evidence and materials produced, convicted the appellant as stated
above and the judgment needs no interference. Hence, prayed for dismissal.
7.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the records, it
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is seen that the admitted fact is that the appellant is said to have restrained
the defacto complainant Narasimman, an Auto driver who entered
Uliyanallur Village carrying school students, who was assaulted and damage
caused to the wind screen of his Auto which is said to have been witnessed
by P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.4 and P.W.7. The foundational fact is that the
defacto complainant Narasimman was attacked and his auto damaged. The
evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 admit that they are the relatives
of Narasimman and their evidence are contradictory. In this case, wrongful
restraint and abuse is made on the defacto complainant/Narasimman but he
was not examined. Hence, the prosecution failed to prove the foundation
fact of the case. No reason or explanation given for not examining
Narasimman. As regards the damage caused to the wind screen and the loss
incurred, examination of P.W.5, who is a Salesman in Ganpat Motors and
production of invoice/Ex.P5 for purchase of wind screen will not be
sufficient proof. Though P.W.8 admits that he had given a requisition to the
Junior Engineer, Motor Vehicles Department, no report obtained for
damage. In the invoice/Ex.P5 there is no reference about the Auto number
of the defacto complainant/Narasimman. In view of the above, it cannot be
taken that the wind screen was purchased for the Auto of the defacto
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
complainant and it was damaged by the appellant. There is variance of
P.W.5 signature in Ex.P5. Hence, this Court is of the view that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
8.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed setting aside the
judgment of the trial Court, dated 09.11.2022 in Spl.S.C.No.48 of 2020. The
appellant/accused is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. The
bail bond, if any, executed shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid,
shall be refunded to him.
9.This Court appreciates Ms.M.Jisriga, learned counsel for the
appellant in rendering her sincere efforts in this regard.
06.02.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arakkonam Sub Division,
Nemili Police Station,
Vellore District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Nemili Police Station,
Vellore District.
3.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for trial of Cases
under SC/ST (POA) Act,
Vellore, Vellore District.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
06.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
