Back
2007 Supreme(Mad) 2398
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Devaraj
Versus
The State rep. by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur Rural Police Station, Tiruppur
Crl.A.No.1002 of 2001
Decided On : 02-08-2007
The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the victim's testimony in cases involving caste abuse and assault under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
Headnote:
SC/ST - Criminal Offense - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x) & 3(1)(xi), Section 323 IPC - The court discussed the discrepancies in the complaint and evidence, the victim's caste abuse, and the community certificates. The court set aside the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and Section 323 IPC, but confirmed the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused faced charges under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323 IPC for assaulting a woman of the Mathari caste. The victim and her mother were abused and assaulted by the accused at his tea shop.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the complaint and evidence, confirmed the caste abuse, and set aside the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and Section 323 IPC, but confirmed the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act.
Issues: Discrepancies in the complaint and evidence, caste abuse, and assault under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the discrepancies in the complaint and evidence, the victim's caste abuse, and the community certificates to determine the accused's guilt.
Final Decision: The conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act and Section 323 IPC was set aside, but the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act was confirmed.
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.371 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Coimbatore. The accused faces charges under Section 3(1)(x) & 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under Section 323 IPC.
2. The learned Sessions Judge, on appearance of the accused on summons, had furnished copies to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., and thereafter framed charges under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and when questioned the accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution
P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examined Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were exhibited. P.W.1 is the victim girl. According to her, she belongs to Mathari caste, a schedule caste. The accused is running a tea shop in her village and when she was crossing the said tea shop of the accused on the date of occurrence along with her mother the accused came out of his tea shop and demanded the balance of Rs.7/-. She requested time till Sunday to wipe of the balance of Rs.7 being the due in the transaction, but the accused abused her by her caste and also slapped her and hold her tuft gave blows on her back and also assaulted her 5 or 6 times with his cheppal and dragged her on the ground and that one Shanmugam & Murugan interfered and pacified him. She had complained about the incident to her husband, who returned from his work spot at about 7.00 pm on the same day to took her to the police station where she preferred Ex.P.1-complaint and with a police memo she was referred to government hospital for treatment, where she was taking treatment as an inpatient for one week.
3. P.W.2 & P.W.3 have turned hostile.
4. P.W.4 is the mother of P.W.1. She has corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect that at the time of occurrence the accused had abused P.W.1 by caste and also assaulted her with hands.
5. P.W.5 is the witness in Ex.P.1-complaint, who is none other than the husband of P.W.1.
6. P.W.6 is the then head quarters Deputy Tahsildar of Tirupur, Who had issued Ex.P.3, community certificate to P.W.1 certifying that she belongs to mathari caste. He has also issued Ex.P.2-community certificate to the accused stating that he belongs to Hindu Uppara community, a backward class.
.7. P.W.9 is the then Sub-Inspector of Tirupur Rural Police Station. On the basis of Ex.P.1-complaint P.W.9 has registered the case under Tirupur Rural Police Station Cr.No.595 of 1997 under Section 323 & 354 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) & 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Ex.P.5 is the FIR.
8. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer, who had visited the place of occurrence on 10. 1997 and prepared Ex.P.6-observation mahazar and also had drawn a rough sketch Ex.P.7. He has arrested the accused on 10. 1997 at about 11.30 hours. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statement.
9. P.W.7 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.1 on 29. 2007 and issued Ex.P.4 copy of the accident register. According to the doctor, P.W.1 had sustained i) an abrasion on the right palm measuring ½ x ½ cms, ii) a small abrasion on the left forearm iii) a contusion measuring 5 x 5 cm on the left thigh. The doctor has opined that the above said injuries are simple in nature.
10. P.W.8 would depose that on 29. 1997 at about 3.00 am P.W.1 came to the police station along with her husband P.W.5 and preferred Ex.P.1-complaint and after registering the FIR, he had sent the victim to the government hospital Tirupur for treatment. After completing the formalities P.W.10 has filed the charge sheet against the accused on 21. 1998.
11. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he would deny his complicity with the crime. He has not let in any evidence by way of defence. The learned trial Judge after giving due consideration to the oral and documentary evidence let in by the prosecution, has come to the conclusion that the cha
