Madras High Court
Balan vs State Rep. By on 16 September, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.425 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.04.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.425 of 2022
Balan ... Appellant
Vs.
State rep. by:
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
L & O Salem South Range,
Salem Corporation,
Kondalampatti Police Station,
Salem District.
(Crime No.383 of 2017).
2.Mariammal ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal
Procedure, to set aside the conviction of the appellant in Special Sessions
Case No.27 of 2018 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem
(Special Court of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities), Act, 1989) dated 31.03.2022 by allowing this appeal.
Page No.1 of 20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
Crl.A.No.425 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.T.Muruganantham
For R1 : Mr.L.Baskaran,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For R2 : Ms.C.B.Geeth Sanchitha,
Legal Aid Counsel
JUDGMENT
The appellant was convicted by judgment dated 31.03.2022 in Special
S.C.No.27 of 2018 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem (Special
Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989) and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo nineteen months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 370 IPC and further the appellant was
convicted and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo fifteen months Rigorous
Imprisonment for offence under Section 3(1)(vi) of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The appellant
acquitted from the charges under Sections 294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Act, 2016. Challenging the conviction
and sentence, this criminal appeal is filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
2.In this case one of the offence is Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, hence, this Court on 10.02.2025
ordered notice to the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant/PW1 through the
jurisdictional Police to inform the pendency of the present appeal. Notice
served to the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant through the jurisdictional
Police and she gave a letter stating that she is not in a position to engage an
Advocate and further she is suffering from ailments. Considering the same,
this Court by order dated 26.02.2025 appointed Ms.C.B.Geeth Sanchitha as
Legal Aid Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant.
3.Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/PW1, mother
of the victim boy/PW2 lodged a complaint on 07.08.2017 to the 1st respondent
Police stating that she was residing with her husband and her minor son/PW2
at Housing Board Colony, Salathampatti, Salem and they belong to Scheduled
Caste community. The defacto complainant/PW1 and her husband took a loan
of Rs.20,000/- at the rate of 10% interest from the appellant eight months prior
to the occurrence and the monthly interest was Rs.2,000/-. For four months,
the defacto complainant/PW1 was able to pay the interest, thereafter, defaulted
in payment of interest. The appellant who gave loan, came to the house of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
defacto complainant/PW1, abused them using filthy language, forcibly took
her minor son/PW2 informing that he will be working in his Chennai Mess
run by the appellant as bonded labour till the loan amount is paid back. After
two months, the defacto complainant/PW1 and her husband went to Chennai
Mess and pleaded with the appellant to relieve their minor son/PW2 from
forced labour but the appellant refused. Thereafter, a complaint lodged to the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem for bonded labour. On coming to know
about the same, the appellant beaten and chased out PW2 from the bonded
labour. Annoyed over the complaint, the appellant, his wife and son came to
the house of defacto complainant/PW1, abused them by calling their caste
name and threatened that they will be done away and forced the defacto
complainant/PW1 to withdraw the complaint. Fearing for life, the complaint
(Ex.P1) lodged to the respondent Police by the defacto complainant/PW1.
PW11/Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint (Ex.P1), registered FIR
(Ex.P6) in Crime No.383 of 2017 for offence under Section 370 IPC, Section
4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 and
Sections 3(1)(vi) & 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and submitted the complaint (Ex.P1) and
FIR (Ex.P6) to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
4.On the orders of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Salem, the 1st
respondent was appointed as Investigating Officer in this case.
PW14/Investigating Officer took up investigation on 08.08.2017, visited the
scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P14), Rough Sketch
(Ex.P15), enquired the witnesses present in the scene of occurrence, recorded
their statements, thereafter gone to the house of the defacto complainant/PW1,
recorded the statements of the defacto complainant/PW1, her minor son/PW2,
her husband and others. Since the defacto complainant/PW1 and her husband
were abused by calling of caste name, PW14/Investigating Officer sent
requisition letters to Tahsildars/PW12 & PW13 seeking community
certificates of the defacto complainant/PW1, her minor son/PW2, her husband
and the appellant. In the meanwhile, the appellant absconded and from
11.09.2017, the appellant arrested near Sivathapuram Bus Stand, his
confession statement recorded and produced for remand. Finding that there is
no material or evidence against the appellant's wife and son, they were
dropped from the case retaining the appellant alone. On collection of
evidence and materials, the Investigating Officer/PW14 altered Sections to
370 IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2016 and filed charge sheet
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
against the appellant before the trial Court.
5.During trial, on the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW14 examined
and Exs.P1 to P17. On the side of the defence, no witness examined and no
document marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the
appellant as stated above.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one Perumal who
belongs to Viduthalai Siruthai Katchi (VCK) came and demanded donation for
celebrating the birthday of party leader, for which, the appellant resisted and
paid only lesser amount. The said Perumal who is an Office Bearer of the said
party is known to the appellant and Perumal only referred PW2 for
employment to the appellant's hotel. The defacto complainant/PW1's husband
also belongs to the same political party, hence, to evade the repayment of loan,
the defacto complainant and her family in conspiracy with Perumal, projected
a false complaint against the appellant. In this case, except the defacto
complainant/PW1, her minor son/PW2 and official witnesses, no other private
witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
7.The learned counsel further submitted that there was no abduction or
forcible labour by any means, and the appellant never compelled PW2 to any
bonded labour. Even in the complaint (Ex.P1), the defacto complainant/PW1
states that only abusive words used against them when the loan was asked to
be repaid by the appellant. Further, on 28.06.2017, it was the said Perumal,
who came to Chennai Mess of the appellant where he saw PW2 employed as
Supplier and Table Cleaner, on enquiry, Perumal came to know that PW2 was
forcibly bonded for non-repayment of loan by his father. In this case,
admittedly, the said Perumal is not a witness. The Investigating Officer/PW14
admits that it is only Perumal who took PW2 for employment in the
appellant's mess, which is the complaint given to the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Salem. The evidence of the defacto complainant/PW1 confirms that
she and her husband used to visit their minor son/PW2 in the appellant's mess
and they plead with the appellant to show some mercy and relieve their
son/PW2 from the work. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that PW2
was kept as a bonded labour, hence, PW2 was free and had all access. In this
case, the other witnesses namely PW3 to PW8, nearby shop owners to the
Chennai Mess not supported the case of the prosecution and there is no
material to prove that PW2 was employed in Chennai Mess as bonded labour.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
Likewise there is no material to show that there was any loan transaction and
charging of exorbitant interest by the appellant. Hence, the conviction and
sentence for offence under Section 370 IPC is not sustainable.
8.He further submitted that the defacto complainant/PW1 in her
complaint (Ex.P1) stated that she belongs to Scheduled Caste community.
PW12, Tahsildar, Salem West confirms that the defacto complainant belongs
to Hindu-Vishwakarma community (Backward Class) and produced the
community certificate (Ex.P8). The appellant said to have abused by caste
name against the defacto complainant/PW1 and her husband Sasikumar.
Since the defacto complainant/PW1 belongs to Hindu-Vishwakarma
community (Backward Class), she would not come under the purview of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
and the defacto complainant/PW1's husband Sasikumar is no more and not
examined as witness, hence, there is no offene of using of abusive words
calling the caste name. The only other witness is PW2 who states that there
was heated arguments between the defacto complainant/PW1 and appellant
with regard to repayment of loan amount and also taking back PW2 and the
abuse is only directed against the defacto complainant/PW1 and nothing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
specific against PW2. Further, the abuse of calling the caste name not took
place in public or public view, hence, the offence under the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 will not get
attracted. The trial Court without considering these aspects had merely gone
by the evidence of PW1 that as though she was abused by calling caste name
and convicted the appellant. Further, the trial Court failed to consider that the
community certificate (Ex.P8) proves PW1 does not belong to Scheduled
Caste community and she belongs to Hindu-Vishwakarma community
(Backward Class) and she cannot take umbrage under the Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Hence, the
conviction and sentence for offence under Section 3(1)(vi) of Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not
sustainable.
9.He further submitted that PW9 and PW10 are Village Administrative
Officer and Village Assistant, they were examined to show the arrest of the
appellant on 11.09.2017. Since there is no recovery from the confession, the
evidence PW9 & PW10 cannot be acted upon. The other witnesses Tahsildars
(PW12 & PW13) examined for production of community certificates (Exs.P8,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
P9, P11 & P12). The Investigating Officer/PW14 confirms that Perumal is the
person who is the man behind the entire issue, who lodged a complaint to the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, who held Dharna before the Police Station
and Collectorate, thereby, forced the Police to take some action eventhough it
is against the truth to ease out the situation. The trial Court ought to have
considered all these aspects and acquitted the appellant. On the other relying
upon the evidence of the defacto complainant/PW1, PW2 and the confession
statement is not proper.
10.The learned counsel further submitted that the appellant without
prejudice to his rights and contention and on humanitarian consideration, had
paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) in cash to the defacto
complainant/PW1. In view of the above, he prayed for acquittal.
11.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the 1st
respondent Police submitted that the defacto complainant/PW1 is a Hindu-
Viswakarma community and she was married to Sasikumar, who belongs to
Scheduled Caste community. The defacto complainant/PW1 borrowed a sum
of Rs.20,000/- from the appellant @ 10% interest before 8 months and paid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
Rs.2,000/- as interest monthly. The defacto complainant was not able to pay
the interest for the past 4 months. The appellant came to the defacto
complainant's house, picked up a quarrel and took her minor son/PW2 aged
about 12 years to work in Chennai Mess, which was run by the appellant until
repayment of the loan amount. The minor boy/PW2 was working in the mess
to clean the table and pour water. PW2 worked in the mess of the appellant
for 2 months and the appellant extracted work from her son by treating him as
bonded labour. Though the defacto complainant/PW1 along with her husband
approached the appellant and requested to handover their son/PW2, the
appellant, his son and wife came to PW1's house and abused them using filthy
language and and threatened with dire consequences. Fearing for life, the
defacto complainant/PW1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to the 1st respondent
Police.
12.He further submitted that on receipt of complaint (Ex.P1), PW11
registered FIR (Ex.P6) and handed over the same to the higher officials.
Thereafter, on the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, the Assistant
Commissioner of Police/PW14 took up investigation, visited the scene of
crime, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P14), Rough Sketch (Ex.P15),
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
examined the neighbouring witnesses, recorded their statements, gave
requisitions to Tahsildar, Salem West, obtained the community certificates
(Exs.P8, P9, P11 & P12) of the defacto complainant/PW1, her husband, her
son/PW2 and the appellant.
13.It is further submitted that the Investigating Officer/PW14 confirmed
that the appellant alone employed PW2 for work, abused the defacto
complainant and her husband by calling their caste name. Thereafter, PW14
arrested the appellant on 11.09.2017 and remanded to judicial custody.
Further, when the defacto complainant/PW1 and her husband went to Chennai
mess of the appellant to get back PW2, the appellant scolded them by using
caste name. Hence, PW14 altered the Sections and sent the Alteration Report
(Ex.P7) to the Court on 17.03.2018. He further submitted that since the
appellant's wife and son were found not involved in this case, their names
removed and deletion report sent to the Court. On collection of evidence and
materials, PW14 filed charge sheet before the trial Court. The trial Court on
conclusion of trial, had acquitted the appellant from the charges under
Sections 294(b) & 506(ii) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
Act, 2016 but convicted for offence under Section 370 IPC and Section
3(1)(vi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. In view of the above, the trial Court by a well-reasoned judgment
convicted the appellant which needs no interference, hence, prayed for
dismissal of the appeal.
14.The Legal Aid Counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant
vehemently opposed the contention of the appellant, reiterated the prosecution
case and submitted that despite knowing well that the defacto
complainant/PW1 and her family belongs to Scheduled Caste community, the
appellant for non-repayment of the loan had abused them by calling caste
name and also threatened them with dire consequences. Not stopping with
that, the appellant having knowledge about the community of PW1 and her
family, compelled PW2 and against his will brought PW2 to his mess and
exploited work forcing him to clean the tables. The defacto complainant/PW1
and her son/PW2 clearly stated in their evidence that the appellant came to the
house and abused them using filthy language for non-repayment of the loan
and also abused using their caste name. PW1 in her evidence stated that she
and her husband used to go and meet their son/PW2 in Chennai Mess of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
appellant and also plead with the appellant to relieve their son/PW2 from
bonded labour. PW2 in his evidence corroborated the same. To confirm the
community of the defacto complainant/PW1, her husband and her son/PW2,
the Tahsildars (PW12 & PW13) examined and they produced the community
certificates (Exs.P8, P9, P11 & P12). Hence, the judgment of the trial Court is
a well reasoned one and the appeal to be dismissed.
15.This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the
materials available on record.
16.In the complaint (Ex.P1), there is specific mention about one
Perumal of Viduthalai Siruthai Katchi (VCK), a political party. The
Investigating Officer/PW14 admits that he neither examined the said Perumal
nor listed him as witness in this case. The defacto complainant/PW1's case is
that on 28.06.2017, the said Perumal had gone to Chennai Mes and found the
defacto complainant's son/PW2 forced to work as Supplier and Table Cleaner,
thereafter, only the defacto complainant/PW1 had gone to Chennai Mess and
attempted to rescue her son/PW2, at that time, in the mess, she was abused,
later a complaint was given to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
bonded labour. On coming to know about the same, PW2 chased out from the
Chennai Mess and he was threatened not to disclose the forcible employment
to anyone. Followed by, the appellant, his wife and son went to the defacto
complainant/PW1's house, threatened the defacto complainant/PW1, her
husband and son/PW2 and used prohibitory words calling caste name. In such
circumstances, the said Perumal will be the right person to draw the link of
forcible employment by the appellant and the subsequent development of
using caste name and threat. In this case, the Investigating Officer/PW14
admits that due to Dharna held by Perumal who belongs to a Political party in
front of the Police Station and before the Collectorate, action forced to be
taken. The explanation of the appellant is that there was demand of donation
by Perumal for celebration of birthday for his political party leader which was
resisted and lesser amount only given, hence, there was some animosity
between Perumal and appellant. Since Perumal being a friend of the defacto
complainant/PW1's husband who also belongs to the same political party, a
false case projected against the appellant lends credence since the
Investigating Officer/PW14 admits non examination of Perumal despite
reference is made in the complaint (Ex.P1). Hence, non examination of the
said Perumal is fatal to the prosecution case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
17.In this case, the defacto complainant/PW1 belongs to Hindu-
Vishwakarma community (Backward Class). Suppressing the same, the
defacto complainant/PW1 lodged the complaint (Ex.P1) to the 1st respondent
Police projecting as though she belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The
defacto complainant/PW1 married one Sasikumar who belongs to Scheduled
Caste community which is proved by the evidence of PW13/Tahsildar who
produced the community certificate of Sasikumar (Ex.P11) and also produced
the community of PW2 (Ex.P12). Thus, it is confirmed that PW2 belongs to
Scheduled Caste community and the defacto complainant/PW1 belongs to
Hindu-Vishwakarma community (Backward Class). Hence, the defacto
complainant/PW1 cannot take a shield of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. PW2 does not state that uttering
of abusive words by the appellant was made in public or in public place.
Hence, the conviction and sentence for offence 3(1)(vi) of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not sustainable
and the same are set aside.
18.As regards the conviction and sentence for offence under Section
370 IPC is concerned, on the facts of the case, it cannot be said that PW2 was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
abducted using force or coercion and he was exploited. PW1 admits that she
and her husband used to go to Chennai Mess of the appellant, meet her
son/PW2, requested appellant to give some more time to repay the loan and to
send back her son. Even in the complaint (Ex.P1), the defacto
complainant/PW1 stated about the loan transaction with the appellant and the
appellant forcibly taken her son/PW2 to work in his mess for non repayment
of the loan. Added to it, PW2 in his evidence states that when he and his
parents were at home, the appellant came there and asked PW2's parents to
repay the loan amount, since PW1 requested two months time for repayment,
the appellant took PW2 forcibly to work in his mess. PW2 further confirms
that on 28.06.2017, his mother/PW1 came to the Chennai Mess run by the
appellant and pleaded with the appellant to send back PW2 but the appellant
refused and scolded the defacto complainant. Thus, the evidence of PW1 &
PW2 are corroborated the complaint (Ex.P1). In such circumstances, it can be
said that PW2 was unlawfully compelled to do labour work against the will of
PW2. This would attract Section 374 IPC and not 370 IPC.
19.In view of the above and the appellant without prejudice to his rights
and contention and on humanitarian consideration, paid a sum of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the defacto complainant/PW1, this
Court modifies the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section
370 IPC to 374 IPC and also modifies the sentence to period already
undergone by the appellant.
20.This Court places its appreciation to the Legal Aid Counsel for
thorough preparation and vehemently put for the case of the defacto
complainant and victim. The Legal Services Authority is directed to pay the
learned counsel Ms.Geeth Sanchitha her entitled renumeration.
21.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is Partly-Allowed.
16.09.2025
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
vv2
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge,
Salem. (Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
L & O Salem South Range,
Salem Corporation,
Kondalampatti Police Station,
Salem District.
3.The Legal Services Authority,
Madras High Court.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
vv2
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT IN
16.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 16/09/2025 09:01:53 pm )
