Back
2022 Supreme(SC) 1648
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Bopanna, Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.
Selvakumar – Appellant
Versus
Manjula & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 16031604 of 2022 Arising Out of SLP (Crl) Nos. 8683-8684 of 2019
Decided On : 19-09-2022
Mr. M.N. Rao, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Promila Thananjayan, Advocate, Ms. Jaswanthi Anbuselvan, Advocate, Ms. Aaina Verma, Advocate, Mr. S. Thananjayan, Advocate, For the Appellant / Mr. David Sundar Singh, Advocate, Shri. Gaichangpou Gangmei, Advocate, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Advocate, Mr. Nupur Sharma, Advocate, Mr. Shobhit Dwivedi, Advocate, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Advocate, For the Respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the accused's involvement in the offences beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of evidence connecting the accused to the offences can lead to acquittal.
Headnote:
Bonded Labour System - Conviction under Sections 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 - [Sections 16, 17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976] - The court discussed the evidence and concluded that there was no evidence connecting the Appellant to the Rice Mill, acquitted him of all charges, and set aside the judgment and order of the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of Accused No. 2 under Sections 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976. The High Court reversed the decision of the Sessions Judge and convicted the Appellant, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and pay compensation to the victims.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence connecting the Appellant to the Rice Mill and acquitted him of all charges. It also set aside the judgment and order of the High Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was sufficient evidence to establish the Appellant's involvement in the offences under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that for the prosecution to establish the offences under Sections 16 and 17 of the Act, it must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused forced and compelled the victims to render bonded labour or advanced a bonded debt. The court found that there was no evidence connecting the Appellant to the offences.
Final Decision: The court allowed the criminal appeals, acquitted the Appellant of all charges, set aside the judgment and order of the High Court, and directed the Appellant to pay compensation to the workmen.
JUDGMENT
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by Accused No. 2 is against the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras1[In Crl. Appeal No. 335 of 2013 dated 22.08.2019 and 27.08.2019 ] convicting him under Sections 16 and 17 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 19762[hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. ]. By the said judgment, the High Court reversed the decision of the Principal Sessions Judge3[In Sessions Case No. 51 of 2007 dated 30.07.2012], Kancheepuram at Chengalpattu, by which the Appellant was acquitted under the Act as well under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 1989 Act).
3. The Appellant/Accused No. 2 is the son of Accused No. 1 who expired during the pendency of the matter before the Trial Court itself. The case of the prosecution is that upon a complaint received at his office on 03.03.2006, the District Revenue Officer, Chengalpattu (hereinafter referred to as PW-8), raided M/s Murugesa Naicker Selvakumar Rice Mill, Paramasivam Nagar, Thirukazhukundram, Tamil Nadu, along with other officers and found PW's 1 to 6 working in the Rice Mill as bonded labourers. He issued necessary order under exhibit P-4 to P-10 to release the labourers. Following the raid, an FIR came to be filed on 16.03.2006 against Accused No. 1, the father of the Appellant herein, and also against the Appellant as Accused No. 2.
4. After completing the formalities, the Sessions Judge framed charges against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for offences under Section 16 and 17 of the Act and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act. During the trial, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-13 and marked documents being Ex. P-1 to P-12.
5. Prosecution against Accused No. 1 having abated due to his death during Trial, the Sessions Court proceeded against the Appellant. At the outset, the Sessions Court held that the prosecution could not prove that the victims were members of any Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and therefore, charge under the 1989 Act did not lie. In so far as the prosecution under the Act is concerned, the Trial Court held that the prosecution could not prove the case against the Appellant for having committed the crime under Section 16 of the Act. The Sessions Court held that there is no evidence to link the Appellant to the Rice Mill business run by his deceased father. The relevant portion of the order is as under: -
'... The Defence Counsel denied that there is no connection between the A2 and the Rice Mill and A2 Selvakumar is residing at Chengalpattu. In this regard, while perusing the evidence of PW 13 Investigating Officer, he has clearly deposed that he has not examined whether the A2 was residing along with his father at Thirukazhukundram or whether A2 is residing at Chengalpattu. Hence without proper investigation and proof A2 has been implicated as accused in this case. If we peruse Ex. P4 to Ex. P10 Release Certificates issued by PW 8 Tmt. Karthika Revenue Divisional Officer, Chengalpattu it is stated specially that Murugesa Naicker is the owner of the above Rice Mill and not A2 Selvakumar. Hence the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to link A2 with the functioning of Rice Mill and the participation of A2 in the day today affairs of the Rice Mill. Under such circumstances it cannot be believed that the A2 gave Rs. 3000/- as advance to PW1 and A2 and compelled to work and PW1 Mani, PW3 Kuppan, PW4 Ramesh, PW5 Anbu, PW6 Manjula, Vanitha, Kumaresan without giving sufficient wages and they have been treated as bonded labours.'
6. In view of the above referred finding of the Sessions Court, that there is no evidence connecting the Appellant to the Rice Mill, the Sessions Court acquitted him of all the charges.
7. There is no appeal by the State against the judgment of acquittal by the Sessions Court. However, Mrs. Manjula (PW-6) preferred an appeal to the High Court being Crl. Appeal No. 335 of 2013. As stated earli
