Madras High Court
Rasu Gounder vs State Through on 21 May, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.376 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 16.05.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 21.05.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.376 of 2025
and Crl.M.P.No.7639 of 2025
1.Rasu Gounder
2.Inbasekaran
3.Kavimani
4.Kandasamy
5.Santhoshkumar
6.Sivakumar ... Appellants
Vs.
1.State Through
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pollachi Sub Division,
Negamam Police Station,
Coimbatore.
(Crime NO.169 of 2018)
2.Mani ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS, to set aside
the conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 12.03.2025 made in
Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2023 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special
Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Coimbatore.
Page No.1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
Crl.A.No.376 of 2025
For Appellants : Mr.N.Ponraj
For R1 : Mr.R.Vinoth Raja
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Mr.C.Prabu
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the impugned
judgment in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2023 dated 12.03.2025 on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST
(POA) Act, Coimbatore.
2.The appellants/accused in Spl.S.C.No.29 of 2023 was convicted by
the Trial Court by judgment dated 12.03.2025 and sentenced them to
undergo six months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 147
IPC, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment for
the offence under section 325 IPC r/w. 149 IPC, to undergo two years
rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to
undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under 3(1)(s) of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
S/ST(POA) Act, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo three months simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 325 IPC r/w. Section 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST(POA) Act r/w. 149 IPC and to undergo six months simple rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo
three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC
r/w. 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Act.
3.The case of the prosecution is that the second respondent/defacto
complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and the appellants
belong to Backward Class Community, both reside in the same Village. On
17.06.2018, at about 4.00 p.m., the second respondent/defacto complainant
was coming in his Maruthi Omni Van near Vinayagar Koil at
Sundarakavundanur where earlier accident taken place in which the relatives
of one Vignesh sustained injuries. The second respondent stopped his
vehicle and addressed the said Vignesh as a related person and offered his
help, that he can take the injured to the hospital in his Omni van, at that
time, the other caste people objected and later, the defacto complaint went
home. The appellants/accused thereafter went to the second respondent's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
house, called him out and abused him by calling his caste name and
questioned him how he can address the said Vignesh in such relationship.
Thereafter, the second respondent/defacto complainant was assaulted, the
wife and mother of second respondent intervened and pleaded with the
accused. The second respondent/defacto complainant was taken to the
hospital and he was treated for his shoulder dislocation which was confirmed
by P.W.8. P.W.10 received information from the hospital, who registered
FIR and placed the same before P.W.11/Deputy Superintendent of Police.
Thereafter, P.W.11 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation
mahazar/Ex.P2 and rough sketch/Ex.P17 in the presence of P.W.5 and
P.W.6, also examined eyewitnesses P.W.2 to P.W.4, examined the
injured/P.W.1, recorded their statements, collected the community certificate
of the accused from P.W.7, community certificate of the defacto
complainant from P.W.9 and on completion of investigation, charge sheet
filed. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.11 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P18 marked
on the side of the prosecution. On the side of the defence, no witness
examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court
convicted the appellants as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
4.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that
earlier during temple Kumbabishekam, the second respondent under
intoxication rode a two wheeler during the temple festival, which was
objected by the Temple Organizing Committee, namely, A4 and he was
asked to seek pardon. Since this happened in the public, the second
respondent got offended, had grudge over the appellants/accused. On the
date of occurrence, accident took place in which the relative of one Vignesh
sustained injuries, immediately 108 ambulance was called and they were
waiting for the ambulance, at that time, the second respondent came there
and insisted that the injured can be taken in his vehicle which was objected
by the Villagers since ambulance had paramedical staff to attend the injured
for any emergency and further, the ambulance had a privileged passage so
that the injured can be taken to the hospital within time. The second
respondent/defacto complainant was forced away, which offended the
defacto complainant and hence, a false complaint registered against the
appellants/accused. In this case, the said Vignesh not examined as witness
to prove the fact that there was fight between the appellants and the defacto
complainant. Further, now it is projected as though the appellants assaulted
the second respondent calling his caste name in which he sustained injuries
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
and he was rushed to the Government Hospital, Pollachi where P.W.8
treated him. But admittedly no x-ray or medical records produced except for
the Wound certificate/EX.P11, in which, it is recorded shoulder dislocation
which might be due to fall for some other reason. In the Accident
Register/Ex.P10, the defacto complainant/second respondent informed, ten
persons assaulted him but in the complaint/Ex.P1, the names of seven
persons alone given. Thus the defacto complainant was very categorical to
fix the appellants as accused for a brawl which took place earlier. P.W.2 is
the wife of the defacto complainant/second respondent. P.W.3 and P.W.4
are close relatives of P.W.1.. P.W.3 and P.W.4 belong to different Village
and hence, their presence in the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful.
P.W.3 and P.W.4 would state that they were inside the Nursing Home and
on hearing the noise, they came out and seen the assault. None from
Nursing Home examined and no contemporary documents produced. They
admit that they belong to New Colony, a far off place from the scene of
occurrence. P.W.1 admits that during the temple festival, he into the crowd
in his bike, his explanation is that the pillion rider was a physically
challenged person, hence he gate crashed into the crowd, his bike was
detained and later, on his apology the bike was returned. In this case, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
defacto complainant’s mother not examined. Further, in this case other than
the family members and close relatives of the victim, no public examined as
witness. These factors were not considered by the Trial Court.
5.The appellants are present before this Court and submitted that the
occurrence took place on 17.06.2018. Prior to 17.06.2018 and after the
alleged incident, both the appellants and the defacto complainant all residing
in the same Village without any animosity. They would further submit that
now the issue resolved between the appellants and the defacto complainant.
The defacto complainant filed an affidavit confirming the compromise and
his intention to compound and withdraw the case against the appellants. The
appellants also filed an affidavit in this regard.
6.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants
relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar vs.
State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2022) 13 SCC 635, wherein, the
Apex Court following the principles laid in Ramgopal and another vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh [Crl.A.No.1489 of 2012] held that the jurisdiction
of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be construed as a proscription
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
against the invocation of inherent powers of the High Courts under Section
482 Cr.P.C. Further, the Apex Court postulated that criminal proceedings
involving non-heinous offences or offences which are predominantly of a
private nature, could be set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including
at the appellate stage but with a caution that the Court must be conscious of
the fact that unscrupulous offenders may attempt to escape their criminal
liabilities by securing a compromise through brute force, threats, bribes or
other unethical and illegal means, cautioned that in cases where a
settlement is struck post-conviction, the Courts should inter alia carefully
examine the fashion in which the compromise has been arrived at as well as
the conduct of the accused before and after the incident in question.
7.The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that on the
facts of the above case, it is clear that compromise between the appellants
and the defacto complainant is not by force or other unethical and illegal
means. Now both the appellants and the defacto complainant/second
respondent are residing in the same Village before and after the incident
with harmony and peace. Hence, prayed for setting aside the conviction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
8.The second respondent present along with his counsel submitted his
compromise affidavit confirming the resolvement of dispute between them,
further confirmed that now both are residing in the village with peace and
harmony, confirmed his willingness to compound the case.
9.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that in this
case, P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste Community and the appellants
belong to Backward Class community. On 17.06.2018, the relative of one
Vignesh sustained injury in an accident, at that time, the second
respondent/defacto complainant came there in his Omni van and offered
help to take the injured to the Hospital by calling the said Vignesh as a
related person which offended the appellants. Thereafter, the appellants
went to the house of P.W.1/defacto complainant, picked up quarrel and
assaulted him P.W.2/wife of P.W.1 and mother of P.W.1 pleaded them not
to assault P.W.1. The assault was also witnessed by P.W.3 and P.W.4.
P.W.2 took her injured husband to the Government Hospital, Pollachi where
P.W.8/Doctor treated the defacto complainant, issued Accident
Register/Ex.P10 and after treatment, issued Wound certificate/Ex.P11.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
P.W.10 received information from the hospital, registered FIR and finding
that the offence involves SC/ST Act, placed the FIR before P.W.11/Deputy
Superintendent of Police, who took up investigation, visited the scene of
occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch, examined the
witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, examined the injured and the
Doctor, collected the documents and filed the charge sheet. He would
submit that now the defacto complainant and the appellants appeared before
this Court, whose identity verified, and confirmed the issue between them
resolved. He further submitted that both the appellants and the defacto
complainant, residing in the same Village with harmony and peace. He
would further submit that the prosecution has got no serious objection in
view of the compromise entered between the appellants and the defacto
complainant.
10.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials,
it is seen that in this case, the second respondent/defacto complainant and
the appellants are residing in the same Village, prior to the incident and after
the incident. Earlier there was a complaint against the defacto complainant
during temple festival, at that time, the appellants detained the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
respondent’s two wheeler since he entered the crowd in an inebriated
condition, de-facto complainant's two wheeler detained later after the
explanation of the second respondent that he was carrying a physically
challenged person for the temple function and after his apology, his two
wheeler returned. In this case, the relative of one Vignesh who belong to
appellants community, needed immediate medical care and they were
waiting for 108 ambulance, at that time, the second respondent offered his
help to take the injured in his Omni Van, at that time, he addressed the said
Vignesh as a related person which was objected by the appellants. Due to
which, second respondent/defacto complainant assaulted. Admittedly, the
said Vignesh not examined as witness. The other witnesses to the assault are
P.W.2/wife of P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.4, who are close relatives of P.W.1.
Admittedly the assault took place in public place but no public witness
examined. P.W.8/the Casualty Doctor to whom second respondent informed
ten persons assaulted him but in the complaint/Ex.P1, seven named persons
were given, who are the appellants herein. The second respondent lodged a
complaint as though he suffered a fracture. The evidence of Casualty
Doctor/P.W.8 is that the second respondent had dislocation of shoulder
which had been set right.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
11.Be that as it may, now the appellants and the second respondent
arrived at a compromise, both hail from the same Village and now both
living in harmony and peace. The second respondent filed an affidavit
confirming the same. A scanned reproduction the same is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
12.The appellants also filed a joint compromise memo. A scanned
reproduction of the same is as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
13.The Apex Court in the case of Ramgopal [cited supra], clarified
that jurisdiction of a Court under Section 320 Cr.P.C. cannot be construed as
a proscription against the invocation of inherent powers vested in the Courts.
The Powers of High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is unfettered. Further,
the Apex Court postulated that criminal proceedings involving non-heinous
offences or offences which are predominantly of a private nature, could be
set aside at any stage of the proceedings, including at the appellate stage.
Further, the Apex Court reiterated the following four principles which has to
be taken into consideration:
1) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the
society;
2) Seriousness of the injury, if any;
3) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and
the victim;
4) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the
occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant
considerations.”
14.Further, the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar [cited supra],
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
held that mere fact that the offence is covered under a ‘special statute’ would
not refrain the High Courts from exercising powers under Section 482
Cr.P.C. Thus, on the facts of the above case, it is seen that now compromise
arrived at between the appellants and the defacto complainant which is
voluntary in nature, the appellants and the defacto complainant are living in
the same Village even after the incident with harmony and peace. Further,
to maintain equilibrium and peaceful co-existence between the appellants
and the defacto complainant/second respondent and ends of justice can be
achieved, if the compromise is accepted and the proceedings against the
appellants is terminated. Hence, drawing inspiration from the judgment of
the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
invoking inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., this Court is inclined
to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
15.In the result, the judgment dated 12.03.2025 in Spl.S.C.No.29 of
2023 by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of Cases under
SC/ST (POA) Act, Coimbatore is set aside and the appellants are discharged
from the above case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
16.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal stands allowed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.05.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Pollachi Sub Division,
Negamam Police Station,
Coimbatore.
2.The Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Trial of Cases
under SC/ST (POA) Act,
Coimbatore.
3.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Pre-delivery judgment made in
21.05.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/05/2025 04:22:56 pm )
