Madras High Court
Muthu vs The State Rep. By on 5 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.13 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.13 of 2023
and Crl.M.P.No.141 of 2023
Muthu ... Appellant
Vs.
1. The State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Olakkur, Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District.
(Crime No.124/2017)
2. The Inspector of Police,
Olakkur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
3. R.Nandhan ... Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the judgment dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Special Sessions Court for exclusive trial of cases registered under
SC&ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Villupuram made in S.C.No.61 of
2017.
For Appellant : Ms.C.Jayachithra
For Respondents
For R1 & R2 : Mr.S.Rajakumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R3 : No appearance
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:09 pm )
Crl.A.No.13 of 2023
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order
dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Sessions
Court for exclusive trial of cases registered under Schedule Caste &
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Villupuram, made in
S.C.No.61 of 2017, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence
punishable under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the
Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”).
2. The case of the prosecution is that the victim went to
TASMAC shop along with his friends for consuming alcohol. After
consuming alcohol, he dashed against the accused and as such there was a
quarrel between them. During the quarrel, the accused assaulted the third
respondent in his cheek and also attacked with liquor bottle in his left side
of cheek. The other witnesses came to rescue the third respondent and the
accused scolded all the witnesses by using their caste name and also
attacked them. On the complaint, the first respondent registered FIR in
Crime No.124 of 2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 323,
324, 307 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(l)(s) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
After the completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:09 pm )
report and the same has been taken cognizance in S.C.No.61 of 2017 by
the trial Court.
3. On the side of the prosecution they had examined P.W.1 to
P.W.8 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. Further, they also
produced material objects in M.O.1 & M.O.2. On the side of the defence,
no one was examined and no documents were marked. On perusal of the
oral and documentary evidences, the trial Court found the accused guilty
only for the offences punishable under Section 324 of IPC and Section
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him to undergo three years for
each offences and ordered to run the sentences concurrently. Aggrieved
by the same, the appellant filed the present appeal along with the petition
to suspend the sentence.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant moved only
the criminal appeal and did not move the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition
in Crl.M.P.No.141 of 2023, to suspend the sentence. However, the
respondents did not take any steps to secure the appellant. The Appeal got
admitted and called for records from the lower Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:09 pm )
submit that while pending appeal, the appellant and the respondent settled
the issue between them and as such, she did not press the petition for
suspension of sentence. Further, the trial Court suspended the sentence
for the period of 30 days. Due to the settlement between them, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant did not move the petition for
suspension of sentence. She further submitted that there are several
contradictions in the prosecution witnesses and the prosecution failed to
prove the case. The time of occurrence and the injuries are fully
contradicted between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3.
6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent police submitted that the prosecution proved the charges by
let in evidences and as such, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant
and it doesn't warrant any interference by this Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed before this Court. Though notice served on
the third respondent and his name also printed in the cause list, no one is
appeared on behalf of the third respondent before this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:09 pm )
8. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that P.W.1 is the
injured witness. According to him, he along with P.W.2 went to
TASMAC shop to consume alcohol. While being so, the third respondent
dashed against the appellant and as such, there was a quarrel between
them. During the quarrel, the appellant attacked him with beer bottle due
to which, P.W.1 sustained injury on his left cheek. But P.W.2, who went
to TASMAC shop along with P.W.1, deposed that already there was a
quarrel between the appellant and another person. In order to resolve the
quarrel, P.W.1 interfered and sustained injury. Therefore, there was a
quarrel between the appellant and another person and no quarrel with
P.W.1.
9. That apart, during the quarrel the appellant did not abuse
them by using their caste name. Only when P.W.1 boarded in the vehicle,
the appellant abused him using his caste name. Therefore, there are
contradictions between the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 and the
prosecution failed to bring the charges even for the offences punishable
under Section 324 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Further,
now the appellant and the third respondent resolved their issue and as
such, the third respondent even after receipt of the notice, failed to appear
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:09 pm )
before this Court, either by person or through counsel.
10. In view of the above discussions, the impugned order dated
30.09.2022 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Sessions Court
for exclusive trial of cases registered under Schedule Caste & Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Villupuram, made in S.C.No.61 of
2017, is hereby set aside. The appellant/accused is acquitted of all
charges in S.C.No.61 of 2017. Fine amount, if any paid, shall be refunded
to the appellant forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed, shall stand
cancelled.
11. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:09 pm )
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Special Sessions Court for
exclusive trial of cases registered
under SC/ST Act,
Villupuram.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Olakkur, Tindivanam Taluk,
Villupuram District.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Olakkur Police Station,
Villupuram District.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:09 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
05.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/06/2025 12:51:09 pm )
