Madras High Court
Selvi vs Hemanth Kumar on 3 March, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Crl.A.No.504 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03.03.2025
Coram:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Criminal Appeal No.504 of 2017
----
Selvi .. Appellant
Versus
1. Hemanth Kumar
2. Vadivel
3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Mamallapuram,
Kancheepuram District. .. Respondents
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 372 read with Section 378 of Code
of Criminal Procedure Code to call for the records in S.C.No.187 of 2007 on
the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu and
to set aside the judgment acquitting the first and second Respondents/Accused
passed on 18.08.2015 and convict the first and second Respondent/Accused
for the offences for which they have been charged.
For Appellant .. Mr. David Sundar Singh
For R1 and R2 .. Mr. J. Ravikumar
for M/s. Arunachalam & Associates
For R3 .. Mrs, G.V.Kasthuri
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal had been filed by one of the victims in this case,
seeking to set aside the judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 passed in
S.C.No.187 of 2007 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
Chengalpattu.
2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Criminal
Appeal, are as follows:-
2.1. The case of the Prosecution is that P.W-4, is running a Non
Governmental Organisation in the name of International Justice Mission and
he came to know that the Accused 1 and 2 are running a rice mill in which
several persons were employed for very low wages besides they were made to
work for several hours. It was also complained that the workers were confined
within the rice mill premises and they were not permitted to go out of the rice
mill. After hearing the grievance of the victim workers, P.W-4 has met P.W-
5, Village Assistant and sought his help. On the basis of the information
received from P.W-4, P.W-5 has given a complaint to the Inspector of Police,
E-5, Koovathur Police Station, Kancheepuram District in which it was stated
that the Accused 1 and 2 have employed (i) Shankar, Son of Ganesan (ii)
Slevi, Wife of Shankar, (iii) Jayapaul, Son of Duraisamy (iv) Bakkiyam, Wife
of Gopal, (v) Ravi, Son of Duraisamy, (vi) Velliyan, Son of Ravi, (vii) Selvam,
Son of Duraisamy, (viii) Mrs. Bangaru, Wife of Late. Duraisamy and (ix)
Sandhiya, Wife of Selvam. It was also stated by P.W-5 that the aforesaid 9
persons were treated as bonded labourers and subjected to physical and mental
torture by the Respondents 1 and 2/Accused 1 and 2 and requested to take
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
action against them. On the basis of such complaint given by P.W-5, the case
in Crime No. 305 of 2006 was registered on 11.11.2006 as against the Accused
1 and 2 under Sections 1, 2 and 4 of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition)
Act, 1976. Ex.P-3 is the First Information Report.
2.2. On receipt of Ex.P-3, P.W-10, Deputy Superintendent of Police
proceeded to the Balaji Rice Mill on the same day namely 11.11.2006 along
with the Village Administrative Officer, P.W-1. On reaching the rice mill,
P.W-10 drew a rough sketch and observation mahazar in the presence of
witnesses Sekar and Vijayan. Ex.P-2 is the observation mahazar and Ex.P-7 is
the rough sketch. P.W-10 also recorded the statement of Vijayan-P.W-5,
Sekar, Adikesavan, Raji, Murugammal, Selvam and Bhakiyam and recorded
their statement. On 13.11.2006, P.W-10 also recorded the statement of
Jayapaul, Sandhiya and Bangaru. On the basis of such information, he
submitted an alteration report under Ex.P-9 altering the offences for which the
case was registered under Sections 1, 2 and 4 of The Bonded Labour System
(Abolition) Act, 1976 into one of 341, 344, 353 of Indian Penal Code read
with Section 16 and 17 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, Section 3
of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 and Section 3 (1) (x)
of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Thereafter, P.W-10 collected the community certificates of those who were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
detained as bonded labourers by the Accused 1 and 2. In this context, P.W-10
also enquired Mr. Balasubramaniam, Tahsildar and Mr. Ramakrishna,
Revenue Divisional Officer and recorded their statement. After concluding his
investigation,P.W-10 filed the charge sheet against the Accused 1 and 2 before
the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Thirukazhukundram and it was
taken on file as P.R.C. No. 4 of 2007. Thereafter, summons were issued to the
Accused and on their appearance, copies were furnished to them under Section
207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the offences alleged against the
Accused 1 and 2 are exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, the case was
committed to the Court of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chenglapattu. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chenglapattu, on receipt of the records in PRC No.4 of 2007 and on
appearance of Accused, has taken the case on file in S.C. No. 187 of 2007.
After hearing the arguments of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned
Counsel for the defence, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge had
framed the charges against the Accused 1 and 2 under Sections 16 and 18 of
Bonded Labour (Abolition) Act, 1976 r/w. Section 34 of IPC; under Section
3(1)(vi) r/w. Section 34 of IPC; under Section 14(1) of Child Labour
(Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986 r/w. Section 34 of IPC; under Section
344 r/w. Section 34 of IPC and under Section 352 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
Accused 1 and 2 denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Therefore, trial
was ordered. During trial, the Prosecution had examined 10 witnesses as P.W-
1 to P.W-10 and marked 18 documents as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-18 besides M.O-1 –
Wooden log measuring 67 centimeter alleged to have been used by the
Accused 1 and 2 to assault the bonded labourers.
2.3. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chenglapattu,
on analysing the entire material evidence on record, acquitted the Accused 1
and 2 on the ground that there is no evidence made available to show that the
Accused 1 and 2 have given the bonded labourers advance amount. It was
also stated that there is no evidence to show that the alleged bonded labourers
were confined within the rice mill premises and they were not permitted to go
out of the rice mill. Further, those who come to the rice mill for grinding the
grains have directly paid the wages to those who were employed in the rice
mill. Therefore, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chenglapattu concluded that the Prosecution has failed to prove the charges
against the Accused 1 and 2/Respondents 1 and 2 herein.
2.4. Aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 passed
in S.C. No. 187 of 2007, the present Appeal had been filed by one of the
victims under the provisions of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act,
1976.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
3. The learned Counsel for the Appellant would submit that based on
the complaint preferred by P.W-4, the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Kancheepuram directed the Village Administrative Officer to give a
complaint. Based on the complaint of Village Administrative Officer/P.W-1, a
case has been registered by the Koovathur Police Station in Crime No.305 of
2006 under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Mamallapuram Sub-Division had proceeded with
investigation. He recorded the statement of the employees of the Mill and
examined the Tahsildar, Cheyyur, Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu
and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Maduranthagam. He had also examined
the Complainant, P.W-4/Selvan Sudhakar who runs the Non Governmental
Organisation named as International Justice Mission and laid the final report
alleging violation of the provisions of the Act as mentioned above. The
learned Trial Judge found that there was no proceeding from the
Superintendent of Police to nominate the Deputy Superintendent of Police to
investigate the case.
4. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the Appellant
invited the attention of this Court to the provisions of the Bonded Labour
(System) Abolition Act, 1976 and also to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of People's Union for Democratic Rights and Others v.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
Union of India (UOI) and Others reported in MANU/SC/0038/1982,
particularly in para 20 and also to the reported judgment of this Court in the
case of Raja v. Palani Chettiar and Others reported in
MANU/TN/2156/2017. The learned Counsel for the Appellant also relied on
the reported decision of the Honourbale Supreme Court in the case of People's
Union for Democratic Rights and Others v. Union of India and Others
reported in MANU/SC/0038/1982 and the reported decision of this Court in
the case of Raja v. Palani Chettiar and Others reported in
MANU/TN/2156/2017. It is his submission that the minimum sentence is not
mentioned under the Act and only maximum sentence is mentioned. In this
case, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram,
Chengalpattu by judgment dated 18.08.2015 had acquitted the Accused as
though the charges framed by the Court had not been proved by the
Prosecution. It is the case of the Appellant that as per the provisions of the
Bonded Labour (System) Abolition Act, 1976, it is the burden of the
Respondents/Accused that they had not advanced any amount on bond and had
not extracted the work from the victims by restricting their movement. The
learned Judge, however, shifted the burden on the labourers who had alleged
violations of the provisions of The Bonded Labour (System) Abolition Act,
1976. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
Chengalpattu had misdirected himself the provisions of the Act had acquitted
the Accused from the charges. Therefore, the learned Counsel for the
Appellant seeks to set aside the judgment in S.C.No.187 of 2007 dated
18.08.2015.
5. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2
submitted that the trial Court had acquitted the Respondents by finding that the
Prosecution failed to prove the charges against them beyond reasonable doubt.
He invited the attention of this Court to Sections 16 and 18 of the Bonded
Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, the old provisions of Section 3(1)(vi) of
the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and Section 14(1) of the Child Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act,
1986. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and
2/Accused 1 and 2 that Balaji Rice Mill is not a big Rice Mill. It is a small
Rice Mill which grinds rice as rice flour and it is not a Rice Mill which deals
with huge quantities of paddy being polished as rice. In the cross examination,
both P.W-1 and P.W-2 they have stated that they are directly paid by the
customers of the Rice Mill. For grinding flour, Re.1/- and for lifting the rice
bag into the mill machine they are paid Rs.3/-. For every stage of conversion
of paddy into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
rice and( Uploaded
rice into rice flour they are paid directly by the
on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
customers. Also in the cross examination they admitted that they can move out
of the Rice Mill towards side gate of the compound wall of the Rice Mill as
and when they wish. Under those circumstances, the cross examination of
P.W-1 and P.W-2 clearly indicates that there is no violation of the alleged
provisions of law warranting the Accused 1 and 2 to be convicted and
sentenced by the Trial Court.
6. It is the further contention of the learned Counsel for the
Respondents 1 and 2 that before proceeding with investigation, the
Superintendent of Police of the District shall nominate a competent Officer not
below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate the case
registered under the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Child
Labour (Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986. To convict the Accused.
there shall be some materials available to the Court. Here, what had been
raised by the Village Administrative Officer as P.W-1 does not indicate that
the Accused-1 and Accused-2, the Owners of the Balaji Rice Mill had not
curtailed the rights of his employees or treated them like bonded labour. They
had deposed that they were paid Rs.4,000/- before ever giving job. For the
allegation that they were not allowed to take up work outside the Balaji Rice
Mill or not permitted to move out of the mill, P.W-1 and P.W-2 in their cross
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
examination, admitted that they used to move out through the side gate of the
compound wall of the Rice Mill. The evidence of P.W-2 indicates that she was
not aware of the claim made by the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Mamallapuram who claimed to have released 9 persons from the Rice Mill.
Had it been true, they should have been examined before the Court as
Prosecution witnesses. The Prosecution failed to examine those witnesses who
are claimed to be employees of the Rice Mill as a bonded labourer. It is the
defence of the Respondents 1 and 2 that some voluntary organisations
claiming to be working for the poor and downtrodden are foisting cases to
extract money from businessmen who run Rice Mill and other mills for the
selfish goal and this is a glaring example of such people who claimed to be
working for the poor and downtrodden people to uplift their social condition.
The evidence available in the cross examination of the Prosecution witnesses
disproved the claim of P.W-4 that the so-called victims were treated as bonded
labourers. Under those circumstances, the learned Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu had on proper appreciation of
evidence acquitted the Accused.
7. In cases of this nature, the Superintendent of Police of the District
concerned had to nominate the Investigation Officer as per the provisions of
the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Here in this case, without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
proper procedure adopted by the Superintendent of Police, Kancheepuram, the
Deputy Superintendent of Police Mamallapuram himself conducted the
investigation and laid the charge sheet before the Court. The evidence of the
Official witnesses particularly P.W-9/Revenue Divisional Officer, P.W-
10/Deputy Superintendent of Police, in their cross examination, clearly
disprove the case of the Prosecution. Therefore, on proper appreciation of
evidence, the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at
Chengalpattu had acquitted the Accused. The claim made by Revenue
Divisional Officer that 9 bonded labourers from the Mill of the Accused, had
been released cannot be countenanced when none of them were produced
before the Court. Apart from that, P.W-2 when confronted in cross
examination has stated that he was not aware of such visit of Revenue
Divisional Officer and release of bonded labourers. She even denied the
suggestion that she had been tutored by Police Officials. Therefore, the
judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at
Chengalpattu is well reasoned judgment and it does not warrant any
interference.
8. The learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 relied on the
ruling in the case of Selvakumar v. Manjula and others reported in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
MANU/SC/1692/2022, in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh
reported in MANU/SC/0282/2009, in the case of Kanniammal v. Govindan
and Others reported in MANU/TN/0868/2019 and in the case of Periyasamy
and Others v. State reported in MANU/TN/1869/2015 in support of his
submission and contended that the Prosecution miserably failed to prove the
allegations against the Accused 1 and 2 beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it
is contended by the learned Counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2 that the
Appeal has to be dismissed as having no merits.
9. On the above contention, this Court heard the submissions of the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.G.V.Kasthuri appearing for the third
Respondent, who only stated that as against the acquittal of the Accused, the
Prosecution had not preferred any Appeal.
Point for consideration:
Whether the judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 in
S.C. No. 187 of 2007 passed by the learned Principal District
and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, is to be set aside as
perverse?
10. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant, the learned Counsel
for the Respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
the State/third Respondent. Perused the evidence of P.W-1 to P.W-10.
Perused the documents marked as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-18. Ex.P-10 is the Caste
Certificate of P.W-2, Ravi. Ex.P-6 is the Caste Certificate of P.W-3, Selvi.
Ex.P-11 to Ex.P-16 are the Caste Certificates of the alleged former employees
of the Balaji Rice Mill.
11. As per the evidence P.W-9 and P.W-10, the claim made by P.W-9
that he had released them and granted Rs.1,000/- each on the release was not
accepted by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram
at Chengalpattu on the ground he had not marked those documents to
substantiate the release of the bonded labourers. Under those circumstances,
the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram at
Chengalpattu had rejected the claim of the Prosecution that the Prosecution
failed to prove the existence of the bonded labour system in the Rice Mill run
by P.W-1 and P.W-2.
12. P.W-4 had instigated the case against the Rice Mill owners as
though they are practicing bonded labour system by engaging people
belonging to below the poverty line and who happens to be the members of the
downtrodden community and exploiting them. When the Rice Mill does not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
have pucca compound and there are entry and exit points through the side
walls for the employees to move out, the claim of P.W-4 that bonded labour
system was practised by the Owners of the Balaji Rice Mill and the bonded
labourers were confined within the Rice Mill compound is not true. P.W-1 is
the V.A.O who claimed to have instituted the complaint based on the
directions of Revenue Divisional Officer, Mamallapuram. As per the
provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Superintendent
of Police of the District concerned had to nominate a Deputy Superintendent
of Police to investigate the case. In this case, no such proceeding were initiated
by the Superintendent of Police. It is true that P.W-1 and P.W-2 claimed that
they have received advance money before their job in the Rice Mill but that
alone cannot be sufficient to attract the provisions of Bonded Labour System
(Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
13. Based on the evidence of P.W-4 alone, the Accused-1 and
Accused-2 cannot be convicted. The evidence of P.W-4 is a hearsay witness.
He claimed that the Owners of the Rice Mill used to attack the workers. The
reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant relying on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, particularly to Section 2 of
Definitions will not hold good in this case as there is no claim of mortgage
debt. Just because the Accused did not enter the witness box and let in
evidence, the evidence of the Prosecution cannot at all be accepted. The
evidence of the Prosecution has to prove the existence of Bonded labour
system in Balaji Rice Mill. There is clear evidence that the Labourers are the
employees of the Rice Mill and they are paid directly by the customers of the
Rice Mill who come for polishing the paddy or for other purpose. Those who
bring rice for grinding, for polishing has to pay the employees for each and
every stage for emptying the sacks containing Rice into the Rice Polishing
machine or the rice in to grinding machine at the rate of Rs.3/- per kilogram.
P.W-4 had in his evidence stated that his Organisation is not a registered
Organisation and it gives an impression or presumption that they are running
an Organisation only to harass employers by threatening them by giving
complaint against them as though they had committed the offences alleged in
the the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Child Labour
(Prohibition And Regulation) Act, 1986. The suggestions put to the
Prosecution witness by the learned Counsel for the Defence that the Rice Mill
owners and other business men in Chengalpattu town protested against
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
foisting of false cases under the pretext of invoking the provisions of the
Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the instigation of a
private individuals as though they are running those Organizations violating
the provisions of the Act was rejected by P.W-4 and P.W-1/Village
Administrative Officer.
14. On perusal of the cross examination of P.W-3/Selvi, it is found
that she is not aware of the proceedings regarding freeing the bonded labourers
at all. She was not aware who have come to the Rice Mill, who were released
etc., That apart, the evidence of P.W-9 indicates that Balaji Rice Mill is
abutting the Office of Revenue Divisional Officer. This was also admitted in
the cross examination of P.W-9/Revenue Divisional Officer that the Office of
the Revenue Divisional Officer is adjacent to the Balaji Rice Mill. The
Investigation Officer/P.W-10 admitted in his cross examination that before
proceeding with investigation, the Superintendent of Police had not nominated
him to be the Investigation Officer in this case. P.W-10 also admitted that he
had not prepared rough sketch showing the physical appearance of Balaji Rice
Mill and its compound. He admitted that he had not recorded the details of the
bonded labourers working in the Balaji Rice Mill and also the Rice Mill is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
adjacent to the High Road near the Bus stop. He had claimed ignorance
regarding the suggestion that only 3 Horse Power Mill was available in the
Balaji Rice Mill. He had not conducted investigation as to whether 20
employees are present in the Balaji Rice Mill as on the date of his inspection.
He also admitted in cross examination that he had not verified the antecedents
of the Organisation run by P.W-4. P.W-10 was unable to give satisfactory
explanation regarding non-examination of so called employees for whom
community certificates were issued by Revenue Officials under Ex.P-11 to
Ex.P-18 or who were alleged to have been treated as bonded labourers.
15. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the provisions of
the the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and contended that the
Accused had to disprove the claim of the Prosecution. Such a contention
cannot be countenanced. The Prosecution had to stand or fall on the strength
of the Prosecution evidence. During cross examination P.W-2 admitted that
they have the freedom to move out. Also it is clear evidence in cross
examination that those who bring rice and paddy to Balaji Rice Mill, will pay
for the job done by the employees directly to the employees and if it is for
grinding rice into flour Re.1/- per kilogram will be paid. If it is for shifting the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
Rice Bag to the Mill, Rs.3/- per kilogram will be collected as wages by the
employees from the customers. Thus, in all the stages of processing such as
lifting, grinding and loading of paddy, amount will be paid by the customers
directly to the employees. When that be the case, the claim of P.W-4 that
bonded labour system is in vogue in Balaji Mills and its neighbourhood cannot
be accepted. The evidence of P.W-4 does not have any weightage in the
absence of proof by P.W-9/the Deputy Collector/ Revenue Divisional Officer
who had conducted enquiry regarding the existence of bonded labour system.
Before enlisting labourers, the labourers were paid Rs.4,000/- in advance and
that alone will not help the Prosecution to convict the Accused. To attract the
case against the Accused that they had treated the labourers as bonded
labourers, one of the ingredients is advance money has to be paid. In this case,
no document had been marked to prove that either advance amount was paid
or the employees were treated as bonded labourers or they were not paid their
due wages to attract the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. If the
Court convicts the Accused based on the evidence of P.W-4, it would amount
to travesty of justice. P.W-4 appears to be threatening Rice Mill Owners in
and around the Villages in Kancheepuram District without any valid proof.
Just because the Owners of the Rice Mill happens to be OBC community and
employees happens to be from a different community it does not attract the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
provisions of The Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act. If coercive steps
are taken without any materials, it will result in refusal of employment to the
people belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In such event, the
Owners of the Mills will be apprehensive to employ the persons belonging to
SC and ST communities on the ground that they will be trapped in false cases
by persons with vested interest. This is a glaring example of similar type. The
Prosecution failed to prove the claim made by P.W-4 with relevant proof to
attract the provisions of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976,
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
16. M.O-1 was seized by the Investigation Officer/P.W-10 and when
he was confronted regarding the same, he was unable to explain in clear terms
as to why he seized the material object. Merely based on evidence in
examination in chief, the Court cannot convict the Accused. The cross
examination is a vital part of the Criminal trial to elicit the truth. Here, P.W-2
and P.W-3 are the employees of the Rice Mill. Their evidence in cross
examination indicates that they were paid by the customers directly. P.W-3
was not aware about the claim of release of persons who were treated as
Bonded Labourers in the rice mill, the time of such release, whether it was day
time or evening time or night hours. Under those circumstances, the non-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
examination of the so called persons who were released from bondage as per
P.W-9 is fatal to the case of the Prosecution. As per the document under Ex.P-
11 to Ex.P-18, when they were produced before the Court, the Court has to
draw adverse inference against the claim of the Prosecution.
17. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this
Court to the reported decision in the case of Raja vs. Palani Chettiar and
Others reported in MANU/TN/2156/2017 in which there is also a similar case
of bonded Labour where the learned Judge had relied on the reported decision
in the case of Sageer and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
reported in 2012 (91) AIR 59 and the relevant portion is extracted as follows:
..."Therefore, the discrepancies noticed in the evidence of a
rustic witness who is subjected to grueling cross-examination should
not be blown out of proportion. To do so is to ignore hard realities of
village life and give undeserved benefit to the Accused who have
perpetrated heinous crime. The basic principle of appreciation of
evidence of a rustic witness who is not educated and comes from a poor
strata of society is that the evidence of such a witness should be
appreciated as a whole The rustic witness as compared to an educated
witness is not expected to remember every small detail of the incident
and the manner in which the incident had happened more particularly
when his evidence is recorded after a lapse of time. Further, a witness
is bound to face shock of the untimely death of his near relative(s).
Therefore, the Court must keep in mind all these relevant factors while
appreciating evidence of a rustic witness".
18. This decision will not help the case of the Appellant. In this case,
P.W-2 in his cross examination admitted that the customers of the Rice Mill
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
pay the employees directly and therefore, there is no question of bonded
labour. Regarding the restrictions of movement, there is evidence in cross
examination that the employees could not move out of the Mill after their
working hours. Only if the employees are restricted within the compound wall,
it will attract the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. Here it is not
the case. Further, the so called released labourers were not examined by the
Prosecution. Apart from the above, the Revenue Divisional Officer/P.W-9 had
not produced the report regarding the release of bonded labourers through his
evidence. P.W-10/Investigation Officer had admitted that in the cases of this
nature, there are Vigilance Committees in the respective District and the matter
has to be enquired by them and only based on their report the investigation
shall be proceeded. Further, the Superintendent of Police has to nominate an
Investigation Officer to investigate the case of this nature, but no such
nomination was made in this case. Therefore, the decisions cited by the
learned Counsel for the Appellant will not be of any use to this case.
19. Another decision relied on by the Counsel for the Appellant in
support of his contention is People's Union for Democratic Rights and
Others v. union of India reported in MANU/SC/0038/1982 and the relevant
portion is held as below:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
“... Any factor which deprives a person of a choice of alternatives and
compels him to adopt one particular course of action may properly be
regarded as 'force' and if labour or service is compelled as a result of
such 'force', it would we 'forced labour'. Where a person is suffering
from hunger or starvation, when he has no resources at all to fight
disease or feed his wife and children or even to hide their nakedness...
...He would be in no position to bargain with the employer; he would
have to accept what is offered to him. And in doing so he would be
acting not as a free agent with a choice between alternatives but under
the compulsion of economic circumstances and the labour or service
provided by him would be clearly 'forced labour'. There is no reason
why the word 'forced' should be read in a narrow and restricted
manner so as to be confined only to physical or legal 'force'
particularly when the national charter, its fundamental document has
promised to build a new socialist republic where there will be socio-
economic justice for all and every one shall have the right to work, to
education and to adequate means of livelihood.
...The word 'force' must therefore be constructed to include not only
physical or legal force but also force arising from the compulsion of
economic circumstance which leaves no choice of alternatives to a
person in want and compels himm to provide labour or service even
though the remuneration received for it is less than the minimum wage
of course, if a person provides labour " or service to another against
receipt of the minimum wage, it would not be possible to say that the
labour or service provided by him is 'forced' labour' because he gets
what he is entitled under law to receive.”
20. The same yardstick applies for this case also. However, the facts
involved in this case is contrary to the one dealt with in the reported ruling.
Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Appellant will
not be helpful to the Appellant's case.
21. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on the reported
ruling in the case of Periyasamy and others v. State reported in
MANU/TN/1869/2015 regarding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mandatory
( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01provision
pm ) of Rule 7 (1) in
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and if the mandatory provision is not followed, the investigation is vitiated.
Here, P.W-10 admitted that no proceedings had been issued by the
Superintendent of Police of the District concerned nominating him as the
investigation officer. Therefore, without following the mandatory provision,
the investigation in this case had been proceeded, which itself is contrary to
the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989.
22. The learned Counsel for the Respondents relied on the reported
decision in the case of Kanniammal v. Govindan and Others reported in
MANU/TN/0868/2019, where the relevant portion of the judgment is extracted
as below:
“13. The release order now attempted to rely upon does not form
part of the Prosecution document. The testimony of the witnesses are
not cogent and free from embellishment. In the Inspection Report and
in the complaint Ex.P-1, the witnesses have not disclosed when the
advance money was given to the labourers. First the Prosecution ought
to have collected materials to show money was advanced. Then they
should have placed prima facie material to show they were exploited as
bonded labourers, not allowed to go out from the Mill Premises.”
23. Here, in this case, there is evidence through P.W-2 that they were
paid advance, but that alone cannot be taken into consideration to convict the
Accused under the provisions of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
1976 as stated in the above reported decision. Here, also the Prosecution had
not established the case to attract the provisions of Bonded Labour Abolition
Act.
24. In the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Dinesh reported in
MANU/SC/0282/2009, it was held as follows:-
“33. From the above decisions, in Chandrappa and Others v.
State of Karnataka iin MANU/SC/7108/2007: the following general
principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with
an appeal against an order of acquittal were culled out:
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, re appreciate
and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is
founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation,
restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate
court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions such as "substantial and compelling
reasons', good and sufficient grounds', "very strong circumstances",
"distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to
curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against
acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of
language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to
interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review
the evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case
of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the Accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall
be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the Accused having secured his acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced reaffirmed and
strengthened by the trial Court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the
evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding
of acquittal recorded( by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis the trial
Uploaded Court.”
on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
25. Even though, the reported ruling relates to the facts of the case
under Section 302 IPC, as far as appreciation of evidence in Criminal trials
regarding re-appreciation of evidence, in cases of acquittal there is a strong
presumption in favour of the Accused and the Accused is presumed innocent
until the contrary is proved. The second stage in the criminal case, after trial is
conviction. To reverse the conviction, in Appeal, the Appellate Court shall be
slow in reversing the judgment of aquittal. If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of evidence, the Appellate Court should not disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.
26. Here in this case, the learned Trial Judge on proper appreciation
of evidence has acquitted the Accused. The Prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the charges against the Accused 1 and 2. Therefore, this Court on re-
appreciation of the same materials is unable to reverse the finding recorded by
the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu.
27. In the light of the above discussion, this Court arrives at a
conclusion that the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram at
Chengalpattu had on proper appreciation of evidence had arrived at a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
conclusion that the Prosecution failed to prove the charges framed against the
Accused. The judgment of acquittal dated 18.08.2015 in S.C.No.187 of 2007
passed by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu is found
well reasoned judgment, not perverse. It does not warrant any interference by
this Court. Accordingly, the point for consideration is answered against the
Appellant and in favour of the Accused 1 and 2/Respondents 1 and 2.
In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of
acquittal dated 18.08.2015 passed in S.C. No. 187 of 2007 by the learned
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, is confirmed.
03.03.2025
Shl
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
To
1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge,
Chengalpattu.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Mamallapuram,
Kancheepuram District.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court Madras,
Chennai – 600 104.
4.The Section Officer,
Criminal Section,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
Shl
Judgment made in
03.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/03/2025 07:52:01 pm )
