The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of the circumstances, including the lack of serious injury to the complainant and the appellant's previous sentence, in determining the quantum of sentence and fine imposed.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Leave granted.

1. The appellant was convicted by the learned Judge of the Special Court constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “the Atrocities Act”). The appellant was convicted by the Special Court for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Atrocities Act, as well as for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”). For the first two offences, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years. He was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only). In default, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 9 months. For the third offence, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 one year and was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only). In default of payment of the fine, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.

2. In an appeal preferred by the appellant, the order of conviction of the appellant for all of the three offences was confirmed. In Revision, by the impugned Judgment, the conviction was confirmed by the High Court. However, the substantive sentence imposed by the Special Court was reduced to two years. Notice was issued by this Court in the present appeal limited to the quantum of sentence.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the added Respondent (the de facto complainant) along with her husband is running a tailoring shop. They have taken the said shop on a rental basis from one Chinnathambi, the owner of the shop. The present appellant is a relative of the said owner of the shop. The appellant is the brother of one Mekala. Their father is the brother of the owner of the shop. A quarrel ensued between the said Mekala and children of the de facto complainant. When the de facto complainant questioned Mekala, the appellant supported Mekala. As a result of the said quarrel, the appellant started insisting on the de facto complainant vacating the tailoring shop.

4. The alleged incident is of 30th August 2014. According to the prosecution, the incident took place in front of the tailoring shop occupied by the de facto complainant. The allegation is that the appellant who is not a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled tribe, abused and intimidated the de facto complainant who is a member of the scheduled caste. According to the prosecution case, the appellant used certain obscene words about the de facto complainant in front of the shop in her possession. Moreover, it is alleged that the appellant insulted the de facto complainant by mentioning her caste. It is alleged that the appellant caught hold of the de facto complainant and pulled her by holding her hair. The allegation is that the appellant also caused injury on the cheeks of the de facto complainant.

5. Shri S. Nagamuthu, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that assuming that the prosecution case is true, the incident complained of arose out of a dispute pertaining to the shop held by the de facto complainant. He submitted that even going by the prosecution case, only because the appellant insisted on the de facto complainant vacating the shop premises, a false complaint has been filed. He submitted that as per the Surrender Certificate on record, as of 23rd September 2021, the appellant had undergone sentence for 5 months and 25 days. Hence, as of now, the appellant has undergone sentence for more than 9 months. His submission is that this is a fit case where this Court should let off the appellant on the sentence which is already undergone.

6. Dr. Joseph Aristotle, the learned Standing Counsel representing the State of Tamil Nadu urged that the incident has occurred in a public place and the appellant is guilty of a very objectionable conduct of pulling the de facto complainant by holding her hair. He has also submitted that the High Court has already shown lenie