Madras High Court
Balakrishnan vs The State Rep. By on 22 September, 2025
Author: M.Nirmal Kumar
Bench: M.Nirmal Kumar
Crl.A.No.1297 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
Crl.A.No.1297 of 2022
1.Balakrishnan
2.Pandiyan ... Appellants
Vs.
1.The State rep. by
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirukoilur Sub-Division.
2.The State rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Moongithuraipattu Police Station,
Villupuram.
(Crime No.143/2019)
3.Selvakumar ... Respondents
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records pertaining to Sessions Case No.17 of 2020 dated 30.09.2022 on the
file of the Sessions Jude, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases
registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Villupuram and set aside the
sentence and conviction.
Page No.1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
Crl.A.No.1297 of 2022
For Appellants : Mr.P.Tamilavel
For R1 & R2 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Assisted by Ms.Harshana.T.
For R3 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed to set aside the impugned judgment in
S.C.No.17 of 2020 dated 30.09.2022 on the file of the learned Sessions Jude,
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST (POA)
Act, 1989, Villupuram.
2.The appellants/A1 and A2 in S.C.No.17 of 2020 was convicted by
the Trial Court by judgment dated 30.09.2022 and sentenced as follows:
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo one year simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 448 IPC;
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo one year simple
imprisonment for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC;
A2 is sentenced to undergo three years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default,
to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
offence under Section 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act, and
A1 and A2 are sentenced to undergo one year simple
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in
default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment for
the offence under Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) submitted that in this
case, A2/second appellant passed away on 26.09.2024 and death certificate
produced. Hence, the Criminal Appeal against the second appellant/A2
stands abated.
4.The brief facts of the case is that on 01.09.2019 in
Moongilduraipattu Government School, TNPSC Group-IV exams
conducted. The defacto complainant/P.W.1, a Revenue Inspector was
deputed for exam duty, at that time, A1/Balakrishnan trespassed into the
Examination Centre, threatened the defacto complainant to permit him to
take sand from Thenpennai river bund for which the defacto complainant
refused and A1 left the place. Thereafter at about 3.30 p.m., again A1 came
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
along with his son, trespassed into the Examination Centre, forced the
defacto complainant to permit them to take sand and A2 further claimed that
higher officials of Revenue Department are in his pocket, the defacto
complainant is only a Revenue Inspector. A2 further stated that he belongs
to Gounder Community and the defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled
Caste Community and threatened him that he will be done away. Again on
the same day at about 7.30 p.m., A2 called the defacto complainant from his
mobile phone 9597166182, abused the defacto complainant stating that he is
collecting money with others and permitting them to take river sand in their
two wheelers and the same pictured by him and it will be uploaded in
Youtube and also complaint will be lodged to higher officials. Thereafter,
A2 again threatened the defacto complainant in his mobile number
9655410583 stating that he would kill him. The defacto complainant
informed to his superior officers, no action taken, thereafter defacto
complainant lodged a complaint on 05.09.2019. P.W.9/Sub-Inspector of
Police received the complaint/Ex.P1, registered FIR/Ex.P5 and M.O.1/CD
containing the call recordings collected. The Superintendent of Police
issued proceedings/Ex.P7 authorizing P.W.10/Deputy Superintendent of
Police to investigate the case since the case involves SC/ST Act. Thereafter,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
P.W.10 examined the defacto complainant, the witnesses present in the
scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar/Ex.P8, rough
sketch/Ex.P9 and arrested the accused, collected community certificates of
defacto complainant and the accused, Ex.P3 and Ex.P4. On conclusion of
investigation, charge sheet filed. During trial, P.W.1 to P.W.10 examined,
Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 marked and M.O.1 produced 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.
5.This Court finding that the appeal is against the conviction of the
appellants including the offence under SC/ST Act, issued notice to the
defacto complainant. On 20.02.2025, the defacto complainant appeared
before this Court and submitted that his main grievance was against
A2/Pandian and since he is no more, he is not interested in pursuing the case.
Thereafter, this Court appointed one Mr.S.Anbazhagan as legal aid counsel.
On 11.03.2025, the said Mr.S.Anbazhagan, learned counsel submitted that
the defacto complainant contacted him and informed that he is not inclined
to proceed with the case against the present appellant/A1 and the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
recorded.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that in
this case, P.W.1 is the victim and the other witnesses, P.W.2 to P.W.5 are
the eye witnesses, present in the scene of occurrence, but not supported the
case of the prosecution. P.W.7 and P.W.8 are the Tahsildar and Revenue
Divisional Officer who issued community certificate for the defacto
complainant and the accused. P.W.9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police who
received the complained and registered FIR, P.W.10 is the Investigating
Officer. Except for P.W.1, no eye witness to the occurrence supported the
case of the prosecution. In this case, the alleged occurrence is said to have
taken place on 01.09.2019, but the complaint lodged on 05.09.2019 with a
delay of four days, no explanation given for the delay. Further, P.W.1
admits that TNPSC Group-IV exams conducted in the School at the time of
occurrence, there were invigilators, officials and Police Personnel present in
the School but in this case none examined. Had there been Police Personnel
present in the venue, it is natural that he would have intervened if the
appellants trespassed into the School and abused the defacto complainant.
Further, the defacto complainant not produced any document to show that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
was on deputation duty for TNPSC exams. As far as A1 is concerned, he is
only said to have trespassed into the School, threatened him and there is no
use of any prohibitory words or calling the victim by his caste name. This
allegation is attributed to A2, who is no more. He further submitted that
P.W.2 is the Watchman in the School, P.W.3 to P.W.5 are public witnesses,
all hail from the Village and have no reason to be present inside the School
compound. P.W.6 who is the observation mahazar witness confirms that he
is a two wheeler mechanic and the Police called him and he signed. Hence,
it is confirmed that none from the scene of occurrence examined. Further,
the occurrence is said to have been taken place near the Verandah of the
School but in Ex.P8/observation mahazar and Ex.P9/rough sketch, there is
no mention about any Verandah. Thus the evidence of P.W.1 is highly
doubtful for some reason he wants to implicate the appellants. Further, in
this case the Investigating Officer admits that the evidence of P.W.1 is with
improvements and contradictions. The Trial Court failed to consider all
these aspects, but on the tainted evidence of P.W.1 convicted the appellants.
Hence, prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence.
7.In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State
of Punjab vs. Avtar Singh reported in (2009) 10 SCC 800 for the point of
delay in lodging FIR. He further relied upon the decision in the case of
Kannan @ Mannanai Kannan and others vs. State rep. by The Inspector
of Police, C5 Karimedu (L&O) Police Station, Madurai City reported in
2022 1 LW(Crl.) 364 for the point that hostile witness can never be
substantive evidence.
8.The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) strongly opposed the
petition's contention and submitted that in this case, the victim/defacto
complainant is a Revenue Inspector, who was deputed for TNPSC exam
duty on 01.09.2019, at that time, the first appellant came there and forced the
defacto complainant to permit him to mine river sand from Thenpennai river
bund which was objected by the defacto complainant. Thereafter, again at
about 3.30 p.m. the first appellant/A1 came along with his son A2/second
appellant in a two wheeler abused the defacto complainant and A2 called
him by his caste name in public and also threatened him for not permitting
illegal mining of river sand. A2 further claimed that he belongs to Gounder
community and the defacto complainant belongs to Scheduled caste
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
community and he has got no right or moral to oppose the Gounder
community people. A2 claims that he has got wide contacts with higher
officials and he can remove the defacto complainant within no time. Again
at about 7.30 p.m., A2 threatened the defacto complainant through his
mobile phone which was recorded by the defacto complainant. After
informing the superior officers, the defacto complainant waited for some
time to take action and thereafter lodged a complaint on 05.09.2019, hence
there was a delay. He would further submit that in this case, P.W.3 to
P.W.5, all belong to the caste and community of appellants and hence, it is
quite natural that not supported person belonging to deprived community
instead supported the accused who belongs to their clan. In this case, P.W.1
being a Revenue Inspector has got no axe to grind against the accused and
nothing suggested that there was some enmity or animosity between the
defecto complainant and the appellants. The Investigating Officer after
registration of the case, recorded the statements, collected documents and
thereafter filed charge sheet. It is not number of witness that counts, the
evidence of PW1 alone is sufficient which inspires confidence and the Trial
Court rightly convicted the appellants relying on the evidence of P.W.1.
Hence prayed for dismissal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
9.In support of his contentions, the learned Government Advocate
(Crl. Side) relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Hariprasad @ Kishan Sahu vs. State of Chattisgarh reported in (2024) 2
SCC 557, wherein it is held as follows:
“10.Of course, the delay in lodging an FIR by itself
cannot be regarded as the sufficient ground to draw an
adverse inference against the prosecution case, nor could
it be treated as fatal to the case of prosecution. The Court
has to ascertain the causes for the delay, having regard to
the facts and circumstances of the case. If the causes are
not attributable to any effort to concoct a version, mere
delay by itself would not be fatal to the case of
prosecution.”
10.Considering the submission and the materials, it is seen that in this
case except for PW1 and the official witnesses, namely, P.W.7 to P.W.10, all
the other witnesses not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.2 to
P.W.5 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. P.W.2 is the Watchman of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
the School. On the day of occurrence i.e. On 01.09.2019 TNPSC Group-IV
exam was conducted and defacto complainant was deputed for exam duty.
During TNPSC exams, Police Personnel will be posted in the Exam Centre,
apart from the defacto complainant, there will be other invigilators, TNPSC
staff and staff from the Collectorate all posted for smooth conduct of the
exam. The place will be secured and regular patrolling of the Police is a
norm. In this case, P.W.1 submits that at 2.15 p.m., he was abused by the
first appellant followed by 3.30 p.m. Along with his son and thereafter at
7.30 p.m., A2 abused and threatened through the mobile phone. Had that
been so, it is quite natural it should not have gone unnoticed by the Armed
Police and others present in the Exam Centre. Further the mobile recordings
though have been produced as M.O.1, it was not with any certificate under
Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and not subjected to forensic
examination. Hence, M.O.1 loses its significance. Further in this case
except for P.W.1 none supported the case of the prosecution. The evidence
of P.W.1 is with exaggeration and contradictions which becomes doubtful
and there is no other material to corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 hence,
convicting the appellants on the sole evidence of P.W.1 may not be proper.
In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
sentence imposed by the Trial Court.
11..In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed inso far as the
first appellant/A1 is concerned, setting aside the judgment dated 30.09.2022
in S.C.No.17 of 2020 passed by the learned Sessions Jude, Special Court for
Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989,
Villupuram. The first appellant is acquitted. Bail bond if any executed shall
stand cancelled. Fine amount if any paid shall be refunded.
12.As regards the second appellant/A2, the Criminal Appeal stands
dismissed as abated.
22.09.2025
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
cse
To
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Tirukoilur Sub-Division.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
2.The State rep. by
The Sub Inspector of Police,
Moongithuraipattu Police Station,
Villupuram.
3.The Sessions Jude,
Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases
registered under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989,
Villupuram.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse
Pre-delivery judgment made in
22.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 26/09/2025 03:35:34 pm )
