Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 219
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P. DEVADASS, J.
V. Ponnusamy - Appellant
Vs.
State Represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.277 of 2008
Decided On : 08.02.2016
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Mr. K.R. Shankar.
For Respondent: Mr. P. Govindarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506(ii) – Criminal Produce Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Criminal Trial - Criminal intimidation – Ingredients of - Convicted – offences of atrocities - Backward Class Community - Challenged - PW-1and her husband are residing in Sithanaicken Palayam - They belongs to Hindu Mathari Community, which is a Scheduled Caste - Accused Ponnusamy also belongs to same village - He belongs to Hindu Kongu Vellalar Community, which is a Backward Class Community - Masani served in Power Loom run by father of accused - Held, There cannot be quarrel over proposition that it is not all the D.S.Ps. even Police Officers above him in rank cannot investigate offences alleged to have been committed under SC&ST (P.A.) Act, 1989 unless they are specifically empowered by Government or by Superintendent of Police (in case of Metropolitan Cities, Deputy Commissioner) taking into account their past experience and sense of ability etc - Admittedly, at time of alleged occurrence, accused was not in possession of any lethal weapon much less any weapon nor he possessed any corrosive substance nor he carry any Kerosene Tin or Petrol Tin or a country made bomb nor a match box - There are lethal words - Mouth is a dangerous weapon - But they cannot be equated to lethal weapons so as to attract – But evidence of PW-1 did not satisfy such a requirement - Charge under Section 506(ii) IPC has also fallen to ground - Criminal Appeal is allowed.
The sole accused in the Special Sessions Case in Special S.C. No.36 of 2007 on the file of the learned Special Judge under Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989/Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore challenges his conviction and sentence.
2. The learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced him as under:-
Conviction Sentence
(i) Section 3(1)(x) of SC&ST (PA) Act, 1989 (i) Six months R.I and fine of Rs.1,000/- indefault 1 months R.I
(ii) Section 506(ii) IPC (ii) Six months R.I and fine of Rs.1,000/- indefault 1 months R.I
The learned Special Judge directed both the sentences to run concurrently. The appellant had paid the fine amounts.
3. The prosecution case runs as under:-
(i) PW-1 Ranjitha and her husband Masani are residing in Sithanaicken Palayam in Palladam Taluk, in Tiruppur District. They belongs to Hindu Mathari Community, which is a Scheduled Caste. Accused Ponnusamy also belongs to the same village. He belongs to Hindu Kongu Vellalar Community, which is a Backward Class Community;
(ii) Masani served in the Power Loom run by the father of the accused. As between the accused and Maasani, there was a scuffle. In this connection, Masani complained against the accused. FIR was registered by Kamanaicken Palayam Police as against the accused (Ex.P-6 FIR);
(iii) On 2.9.2007, in his house, Masani was in convalescent stage. At about 6 p.m. the accused came. In order to insult PW-1, he called her by her caste and also threatened her to direct her husband to withdraw the case given against him, otherwise he will burn their entire family;
(iv) On 3.9.2007, at about 5.30 p.m., at the Kamanaicken Palayam Police Station, PW-1 gave Ex.P-1 complaint to PW-10 Rajaram, Inspector of Police. He registered this case for offences under Section 506(ii) IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC&ST (PA) Act (Ex.P-5 FIR). He sent the F.I.R. to PW-11, Kamaraj, D.S.P., Palladam. He also sent a copy of the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Palladam;
(v) PW-11 took up his investigation. Visited the place of occurrence. Prepared Ex.P-7 Observation Mahazar in the presence of PWs.6 and 7. He drew Ex.P-7 rough sketch of the scene place. He examined the material witnesses and other witnesses and recorded their statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He obtained Ex.P-2 Community Certificate for the accused from PW-2 Rathinaganapathy, Dy. Tahsildar, Palladam. He also obtained Ex.P-4 Community Certificate for PW-1 from PW-9, Nagaraj, Tahsildar, Palladam. On 8.10.2007, at about 9 a.m., near Sethunaicken Palayam Bus Stop, he arrested the accused. Sent him to jurisdictional Magistrate for judicial custody. Concluding his investigation, on 17.10.2007, he filed the Final Report before the concerned Court.
4. The learned Special Judge after complying with the statutory formalities, heard both sides, framed charges under Sections 3(1)(x) Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 506(ii) IPC.
5. Since the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11, marked Exs.P-1 to P-9 to substantiate the charges.
6. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating aspects appearing as against the accused in the prosecution evidence. He denied the offences. He also examined himself as DW-1 and marked Ex.D-1 Certificate issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Udumalpet.
7. Appreciating the evidence on record and upon hearing both sides, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as stated in paragraph 2, supra.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that prosecution has not established the charges framed against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. One of the main ingredient for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC&ST (PA) Act is that the offence should have been committed in a place which is within public view. However, in this case, there is no clear cut mentioning of such a place in the FIR. However, in her
