Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1547
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
Jeyaramaraja & Others - Appellants
Versus
Inspector of Police, Sathiyamangalam, Villupuram District - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 295 of 1999
Decided On : 22-01-2019
For the Appellants :N.P. Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:R. Ravichandran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side).
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Sections 324, 323 and 506 - SC/ST Act, 1989 – Section 3 - Recorded the statements from witnesses - Trial was proceeded against accused - Trial Court - Trial Court sentenced first accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section SC/ST Act, 1989 second accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 8(b) r/w. 3of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 323 of IPC third accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 8 SC/ST Act, 1989 – Held, Admittedly said occurrence happened in place belonging to one - Perusal of records discloses that before entering into the scene of occurrence accused and one assembled there for an existing land dispute - Since there was quarrel in between them tried to pacify them. Except no other public were present at the scene of occurrence and are interested persons and relative of one – Thus alleged occurrence had not taken place within public view – Further his evidence indicates that he sustained grievous injuries on his chest, thigh and backside of his body - Doctor who gave treatment at relevant point of time was examined as is wound certificate issued by Doctor Perusal reveals that except lacerated injury in right side of the ear no other injury was sustained by – Hence allegation that sustained grievous injury is nothing but false - In view of all the above foregoing this Court is of view that prosecution has not established guilt on accused beyond all reasonable doubt - In absence of any material this Court has to necessarily interfere with conviction and sentence imposed by Trial Court and the same is liable to be set aside - word public view is not defined in the Act. The dictionary meaning of the word public is open to people as a whole dictionary meaning of the word view is vision or sight as from a particular position - Reading these two meanings together in context of words public view it only means that public should have viewed incident irrespective of place where the offence is committed offence may be in a public place within public view or in any other place within public view - In either situation essential element that requires to be established is that it was in public view word public view in Section is preceded by word in any place within - Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal filed against the judgment dated 23.03.1999 made in Special Case No.20 of 1998 by the learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram.
The appeal is today listed without E.B. The appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 23.03.1999 made in Special Case No.20 of 1998 by the learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram.
2. The appellants are the accused 1 to 4 respectively, in the case in Special Case No.20 of 1998. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows: P.W.1 belong to Scheduled Caste and the accused does not belong to Scheduled Caste community. On 11.05.1998 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused assembled in the land belonging to one Narayani Ammal in old Chettikulam Village and insulted P.W.1 by calling his caste name. Further, A1 attacked P.W.1 with iron crowbar on his chest, A2 attacked with P.W.1 with wooden log on his left thigh and A3 and A4 also attacked P.W.1 with wooden log on the backside of P.W.1.
3. Immediately, after the occurrence, P.W.1 himself went to the Government Hospital and was admitted as inpatient. Thereafter, since no action was taken against the accused, P.W.1 sent a registered complaint on 14.05.1998/ Ex.P1 and the same was received by P.W.7 on 16.05.1998. Immediately thereafter, P.W.7 registered FIR/ Ex.P5/ Cr.No.207 of 1998 under Sections 324, 323 and 506 (ii) of IPCr/w. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the case was taken up by P.W.8/ Deputy Superintendent of Police for further investigation. Immediately thereafter, P.W.8 went to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P2/ observation mahazer and rough sketch/ Ex.P6 and also recorded the statements from the witnesses and laid the final report as against the accused on 05.08.1998.
4. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as against the first accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 324of IPC; as against the accused 2 to 4 for the offence under Section 8
(b) r/w. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 323 of IPC.
5. When the charges framed were explained and read over to them and when questioned about the same, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Hence, trial was proceeded against the accused.
6. On the side of the prosecution, 8 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.8, 6 documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6. On the side of the accused no witness was examined, however, two documents were marked as exhibits Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.2.
7. After trial, the Trial Court convicted the first accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; the second accused under Section 8 (b) r/w. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 323 of IPC; the third accused under Section 8 (b) r/w. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and the fourth accused under Section 8 (b) r/w. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court acquitted the first accused from the charge under Section 324 of IPC; and the accused 3 and 4 from the charge under Section 323 of IPC.
8. The Trial Court sentenced the first accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; the second accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(b) r/w. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 of IPC; the third accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(b) r/w. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; and the fourth accused to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 8(b) r/w. 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The sentences im
