Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Vanishree @ Imagulate – Appellant
Versus
State by The Deputy Superintendent of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.289 of 2015
Decided on : 06-12-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 342, 307 r/w.34 and 355 IPC - [Section 374 Cr.P.C.] - [Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C.] - [342 IPC, 307 r/w.34 IPC, 355 IPC] - The court discussed the charges against the appellants, including the failure to prove the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C. The judgment also highlighted the prosecution's evidence, the victim's statement, and the medical evidence, ultimately leading to the court's decision to set aside the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of appellants for offenses including physical torture and attempt to commit murder of a minor girl who was working as a maid in their house. The prosecution's case was based on evidence from witnesses and medical reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C. However, the court convicted the appellants for other charges based on the victim's statement and medical evidence.
Issues: The issues included the reliability of witnesses' testimonies, the victim's statement, and the medical evidence, as well as the failure to prove the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the lack of substantial reliable evidence to support the conviction under Sections 342, 307 r/w.34 and 355 IPC, and the failure to prove the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the judgment of the trial Court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. The fine amount, if paid, was ordered to be refunded, and any executed bail bond was cancelled.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., prayed to call for the records and to set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed against the appellants (A1 to A3) by the Principal Sessions Judge Court, Salem in S.C.No.242 of 2005 dated 30.04.2015 and acquit them from all the charges.
The Principal Sessions Court, Salem convicted the appellants 1 to 3 herein and sentenced vide impugned judgment dated 30.04.2015, made in S.C.No.242 of 2005, as follows:-
| Rank of the accused | Charges | Findings of the trial Court | Punishment
|
| 1st accused | U/s.342 IPC
| Found guilty | Convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment. |
| U/s.307 r/w.34 IPC | Found guilty | Convicted and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. | |
| 2nd accused | U/s.342 IPC | Found guilty | Convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment. |
| U/s.307 r/w.34 IPC | Found guilty | Convicted and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. | |
| U/s.355 IPC
| Found guilty
| Convicted and sentenced to undergo onr year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment. | |
| 3rd accused | U/s.342 IPC | Found guilty | Convicted and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment. |
| U/s.307 r/w.34 IPC | Found guilty | Convicted and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-; in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. |
2. These three appellants were also charged for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w. Section 34 I.P.C., but the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove the said charge and acquitted the appellants.
3. The gist of the prosecution is that Kamatchi, the daughter of PW.1 was working as a maid in the house of Vanishree/the 1st appellant herein. She had been working in their house for nearly 7 months. For about 5 months, she was taken care well, but when Kamatchi saw Vanishree and the 2nd appellant/2nd accused in a compromise position, they both started physically torturing her. The 3rd appellant/3rd accused joined with other accused and subjected Kamatchi to brutal attack and as a consequence, she was taken to a private hospital for the injuries. This incident came to the notice of a Women Association at Salem by name 
and they informed the police on 11.07.2003. The respondent police went to Selva Hospital recorded the statement of Kamatchi and registered the First Information Report in Crime No.393 of 2003 dated 11.07.2003 against these three appellants for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 343, 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. Later through investigation, it was found that the appellants with intention to cause death, the 1st appellant tried to strangulate Kamatchi. The 2nd and 3rd appellants had attacked her all over the body with stick. All the three accused has confined her in a room to prevent her from disclosing the illegal intimacy between A1 and A2. The 2nd accused has also forced the victim girl/Kamatchi to dance for cinema tune and made 1st appellant sons to urinate in the mouth of Kamatchi. Since the victim Kamatchi belong to scheduled caste charged under Sections 3(2)(v) SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, r/w.34 IPC, Section 342 I.P.C., 307 r/w.34 I.P.C against A1 to A3 and
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for trustworthy and corroborated evidence, the evaluation of motive behind the complaint, and the significance of material contr....
Intention to insult based on caste must be established for conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. & S.T. (PoA) Act; the absence of such intent results in acquittal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reliable and consistent evidence in criminal cases, as well as the need for corroboration in material particulars by reliable t....
Point of law: There may be no difficulty in accepting or discarding the testimony of the single witness. The difficulty arises in the third category of cases. The court has to be circumspect and has ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, including the reliability of witness testimonies and adhe....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
