High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R. SHIVAKUMAR
Sivakumar
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police
Crl.A.No.1136 of 2002
Decided On : 01-06-2008
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes - Criminal Appeal - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 3(1)(x), Section 324 I.P.C. - The judgment discusses the conviction and sentence of the first accused for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 324 of I.P.C. The court analyzed the evidence, discrepancies, and delays in the case, and highlighted the lack of proper appointment of the investigating officer as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the first accused and another individual being prosecuted for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341 and 324 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on an incident where the accused assaulted the brother of a witness and used caste-based abuse, leading to injuries. The accused denied the charges, and discrepancies in the evidence and delays in the case were highlighted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies in the evidence, including contradictions in the timing of events and the registration of the complaint, leading to the conclusion that the case may have been concocted. The lack of proper appointment of the investigating officer as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 was also highlighted. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant of all the offences.
Issues: The issues included discrepancies in the evidence, delays in the case, and the lack of proper appointment of the investigating officer as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the discrepancies in the evidence, delays in the case, and the lack of proper appointment of the investigating officer as per Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 324 of I.P.C., and acquitted the appellant of all the charges.
The first accused in S.C.No.276 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Session Judge/Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, who was prosecuted for i) an offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(x) of the above said Act, ii) an offence punishable under Section 341 I.P.C. And iii) an offence punishable under Section 324 I.P.C., found guilty of and convicted for the offences under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 324 of I.P.C. sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of two months in default of payment of fine in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with a direction to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months in respect of the offence under Section 324 of I.P.C., has brought forth the Criminal Appeal against the said conviction recorded and sentence passed by the trial judge by judgment dated 12.07.2002.
2. Based on the complaint of P.W.1 marked as Ex.P1, a case was registered on 02.08.2000 in Crime No.268/2004 on the file of Annur Police Station for alleged offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341 and 324 of Indian Penal Code against the appellant herein (A1) and one Subramaniam, son of Ramasamy Gounder (A2), both residents of Kanuvakkarai within the jurisdiction of Annur Police Station. P.W.6, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Avinashi after investigation submitted a final report on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi alleging commission of the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341 and 324 of IPC by the aforesaid accused persons. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Avinashi took it on file as P.R.C.No.1/2001 and after furnishing copies of the records relied on by the prosecution under Section 207 of Criminal Procedure Code, committed the case for trial to the Principal Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as the alleged offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the said act was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge (Special Judge).
3. On appearance of the accused before the trial court, charges were framed for offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341 and 324 of IPC. After having the charges read over and explained, both the accused pleaded not guilty. Hence the learned Principal Sessions Judge (Special Judge) tried the case. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6, marked 11 documents as Ex.P1 to P11 and produced one material object as MO.1. After the conclusion of the evidence for prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution. The accused denied them as false and once again reiterated that they were not guilty and the case had been cooked up against them. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the accused.
4. After hearing arguments advanced on both sides, the learned trial judge considered the evidence and acquitted Subramaniam (2nd accused) holding that the charges framed against him were not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Judge also acquitted the first accused/ appellant herein in respect of the charge for the offence punishable under Section 341 of Indian Penal Code. However, the appellant/first accused was found guilty, convicted and sentenced as
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.