Madras High Court
Pattusami vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 June, 2025
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A.No.180 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.A.No.180 of 2023
Pattusami ... Appellant
Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gingee Sub Division,
Villupuram District,
Crime No.1334 of 2020 on the file
of Valathy Police Station.
2. Vasanthi
R2 Impleded as per order dated
01.03.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.2960
of 2023 in Crl.A.No.180 of 2023 ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., r/w
Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, to call for the records and set
aside the judgement passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court
for Exclusive Trial Cases registered under Schedule Castes and Schedules
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Villupuram in Sessions Case
No.54/2020.
Page 1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
Crl.A.No.180 of 2023
For Appellant : Mr.A.P.Pasupathy
For Respondents
For R1 : Mr.S.Raja Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R2 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed as against the order
dated 25.01.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court
for Exclusive Trial Cases registered under Schedule Castes and Schedules
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Villupuram, in Sessions Case
No.54 of 2020, thereby convicted the appellant for the offences under
Sections 448 & 354(A) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the
Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the SC/ST Act”)
2. The case of the prosecution is that on 09.10.2020 at about
7.30 p.m., when the victim was in her house along with her son, the
accused had knocked the door of the victim. Thereafter, he entered into
her house and gave Rs.1,000/- and called the victim to share her bed and
also pulled her hands to come out from her house. When the victim
refused to come out, the accused abused her by using her caste name. On
receipt of the complaint, the first respondent registered the FIR in Crime
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
No.1334 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 448, 354A
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act.
After completion of investigation, the first respondent filed final report
and the same has been taken cognizance by the trial Court in Sessions
Case No.54 of 2020.
3. On the side of the prosecution, they had examined P.W.1 to
P.W.14 and marked documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the
appellant, no one was examined and no document has been marked. On
perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the
appellant guilty for the offences under Sections 448 & 354(A) of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him to
undergo one year simple imprisonment for the offences under Section
448 of IPC and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the
offence under Section 354(A) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) & 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST Act, each and also imposed fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to
undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Further, the sentences are
ordered to run concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that though the prosecution specifically alleged that the appellant
trespassed into the house of the victim and gave a sum of Rs.1,000/- to
her son and insisted her to share her bed, the prosecution failed to
examine the victim's son and there was no recovery of Rs.1,000/-, in
order to bring the charges into home. He further submitted that
admittedly, the occurrence took place inside the house of the victim and
not in public view and therefore the offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i),
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act are not at all attracted against the appellant.
Further according to the case of the prosecution, the accused insisted the
victim to share her bed, who examined as P.W.1. However there was a
contradiction in the evidence of P.W.1 and there was no independent
witness examined to prove the prosecution. There was an enmity between
P.W.2 and the appellant since, the appellant refused to give his daughter
to P.W.2's son. Therefore, the present false case has been foisted as
against the appellant.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent submitted that the appellant trespassed into the victim's house
and insisted the victim to share her bed. Therefore, it would destroy the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
modesty of the victim and the Section 354(A) of IPC is very much
attracted. Accordingly, the trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for
the offence under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act. Further,
the occurrence had happened in the house of the victim and the appellant
insulted the victim in the place of the public view. Therefore, the
conviction imposed on the appellate did not warrant any interference by
this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side an
perused the materials placed before this Court.
7. The appellant is the sole accused. The victim was examined
as P.W.1. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, it is revealed that the
appellant trespassed into the house of the victim and gave a sum of
Rs.1,000/- to her son and insisted her to share her bed. He also pulled her
hand to come out from the house. However, in order to corroborate the
said evidence, the prosecution failed to examine the son of the victim.
The respondent also failed to recover the sum of Rs.1,000/- from the
victim. The relative of the appellant is examined as P.W.2. She is only
hear-say witness and she deposed that P.W.1 informed about the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
occurrence and after warning the appellant, they lodged the complaint.
She was also cross-examined to the extent that she had enmity with the
appellant. When she offered her daughter to the appellant's son, it was
refused by the appellant. Therefore, non-examination of the victim's son
and not recovery of Rs.1,000/- are fatal to the case of the prosecution.
The prosecution mainly relied upon the alleged fact that the appellant
trespassed into the house of the victim and gave a sum of Rs.1,000/- by
insisting the victim to share bed with the appellant. Therefore, the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge under Section 354(A) of
the IPC.
8. Insofar as the offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(va) of
the SC/ST Act are concerned, according to the prosecution case, the
appellant abused the victim by using his caste name. Admittedly, the
occurrence allegedly happened inside the house of the victim and not in
the public place. Therefore, no offence is made out under the SC/ST Act,
hence the prosecution failed to bring the charges to home. In view of the
above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the
offences under Sections 448 & 354(A) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i) &
3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, are liable to be set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
9. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed and the
conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special
Court for Exclusive Trial Cases registered under the SC/ST Act,
Villupuram District in Sessions Case No.54 of 2020 dated 25.01.2023 for
the offence under Sections 448 & 354(A) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w)(i)
& 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, are hereby set aside. The appellant/accused
is acquitted of all charges in Sessions Case No.54 of 2020 on the file of
the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial Cases
registered under the SC/ST Act, Villupuram. Fine amount, if any paid,
shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Bail bonds, if any executed,
shall stand cancelled.
06.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
rts
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Exclusive Trial
Cases registered under
Schedule Castes and Schedules
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
Villupuram
2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Gingee Sub Division,
Villupuram District.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/06/2025 03:59:12 pm )
