IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
Meenakshi Sundaram & Another - Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by Station House Officer, Villupuram District - Respondent
Crl.A.Nos.688 & 636 of 2015
Decided On : 28-12-2018
Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code - Section 326, 323 - Against judgment of conviction registration of FIR - Trial Court - Prosecution case is that complainant one belongs to Schedule Caste and Accused belongs to Hindu Community – On complainant were standing in bus stop at that time A1came down from town bus and he demanded match box from replied that he had no match box suddenly A1 abused dragging caste name assaulted him with hands on his shoulder and thereafter called his brother alias through mobile phone and thereafter A2 came to occurrence place and he assaulted by hand on defector complainant his left cheek - Held, Thus aforesaid aspect would clearly exposes complete lack in evidence on side of prosecution to support prosecution theory - Whereas elaborate defense theory as has been projected by appellants/defense side as has been stated in cross examination and also through some other witnesses can be taken into account in given facts and circumstances of case - Without appreciating all these aspects in proper perspective Trial Court Judge merely based on Ex.P6 has come to conclusion that A1 is guilty of offence under Section 326 of IPC and Judge also had come to conclusion based on evidence of these witnesses who are stated to have been or claimed to be family members or relatives decided guilt of A1 for offence under Section 3(x) of SC/ST Act and also decided offence under Section 323 of IPC against first and second accused and accordingly convicted accused persons - On analyzing evidences on side of prosecution and also by taking into account the defense theory this Court is of view that prosecution has not proved charge beyond reasonable doubt against accused persons as there had been a complete lack in cogency in projecting each evidence on side of prosecution - This aspect has not been considered in proper perspective by Judge of the Trial Court - With result there has been an erroneous decision in judgment on appeal which is considered view of this Court is liable to be interfered with - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence of the learned District-cum-Sessions Judge, Special Court, Villupuram District, dated 15.09.2015 in S.S.C.No.152 of 2015.)
1. These two Criminal Appeals have been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence made by the learned District-cum- Sessions Judge, Special Court for SC/ST Cases, Villupuram District, in S.S.C.No.152 of 2015 dated 15.09.2015.
2. The prosecution case is that, the complainant, P.W.1, one Selvaraj belongs to Schedule Caste and Accused A1 and A2 belongs to Hindu Thulavavellalar Community. On 02.04.2013 at about 22 hrs. (10.00 p.m.), the complainant, P.W.1 and P.W.2, were standing in the Keezhthenur bus stop, at that time, the A1, Meenakshisundaram, came down from the town bus and he demanded match box from P.W.1 and when P.W.1 replied that, he had no match box, suddenly, the A1 abused the P.W.1 by dragging the caste name of P.W.1 and assaulted him with hands on his shoulder and thereafter, the P.W.1 called his brother, the P.W.2 one Praba alias Prabakaran through mobile phone and thereafter, A2 came to the occurrence place and he assaulted by hand on the defacto complainant/P.W.1 on his left cheek. Then, P.W.1 dragged the A1’s dhoti and bundled six small stones ([“TAMIL”) on that dhoti and assaulted the P.W.1, at his left hand, back side head, right side shoulder. Due to the said assault of A1, the complainant, P.W.1 got fracture on his left hand.
3. Thereafter, the P.W.1 was taken to Thirukovilur Hospital, where, after taking first aid, the P.W.1 had been referred to Mundiampakkam (Villupuram) Government Hospital, where, the P.W.1 had been admitted as in patient and had taken treatment for some days. Based on the said occurrence, an FIR was registered on 04.04.2013 at 21.00 hrs. (9.00 p.m.) for the alleged offence under Section 294(b), 323, 324 and Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989. Pursuant to the registration of FIR, the P.W.14, Deputy Superintendent of Police had taken the investigation and after having investigated, charge sheet had been filed on 16.08.2013 for the said offences against A1 and A2. The said charge sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thirukovilur in PRC.No.34 of 2013. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Special Court for SC/ST Act cases, Villupuram in Spl.S.C.No.152 of 2015.
4. Before the Trial Court, prosecution side had examined 14 witnesses and marked 10 exhibits and also produced two material objects. After having completed the Trial, the Trial Court had come to the conclusion that, A1 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 326, 323 of IPC and under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act and accused/A2 was found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. A2 was acquitted from the charges for the offence punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act.
5. The Trial Court, thereafter convicted the A1 and sentenced him for five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo six months imprisonment for offences under Section 326 of IPC. He was also convicted for six months imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC and he was also convicted and sentenced for one year imprisonment for the offences punishable under Section 3(i) (x) of SC/ST Act and all the three sentences, the A1 have to undergo concurrently. The Trial Court also has convicted A2, for six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. As against the said judgment and conviction of the Trial Court dated 15.09.2015, the A1 preferred Crl.A.No.688 of 2015 and the A2 preferred Crl.A.No.636 of 2015 and that is how, both these appeals have come before this Court.
6. Heard Mr.S.Saravanakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.T.Shanmuga Rajeshwaran, learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent/prosecution.
7. Learned cou
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.