Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Surya & Others - Appellants
Versus
State by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram District - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 251 of 2020
Decided On : 20-03-2023
Criminal Appeal - SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 506 (ii) of I.P.C., and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the delay in registering the F.I.R., contradictions in the evidence, and the reliability of the prosecution witnesses. Key legal provisions such as the requirement for immediate F.I.R. registration, the significance of reliable evidence, and the burden of proof were influential in the court's decision to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an incident where the appellants were convicted for various offences including those under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses and documentary evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the delay in registering the F.I.R., contradictions in the evidence, and the unreliability of the prosecution witnesses rendered their case doubtful. As a result, the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside and the appellants were acquitted.
Issues: The issues revolved around the delay in F.I.R. registration, contradictions in the evidence, and the reliability of the prosecution witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the requirement for immediate F.I.R. registration, the significance of reliable evidence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside, and the appellants were acquitted. Fine amount, if any paid by the accused, was ordered to be refunded and bail bond, if any executed, was discharged.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) r/w.382 of Cr.P.C., praying to call for the records and to allow the above appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction dated 10.03.2020 passed in Spl.S.C.No.16/2019 by Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Villupuram, and acquit the appellants herein.)
The appellants herein are A1, A3 and A5 in Spl.S.C.No.16 of 2019 on the file of the Special Sessions Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Villupuram.
2. Based on the complaint given by one Veerasamy, a case has been registered in Crime No.354 of 2018 by the respondent police on 12.11.2018 for the alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 506 (ii) of I.P.C., and 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 2015. Investigation was done by the respondent and Final Report was filed. Wherein, one of the accused called Vinod, being a juvenile, his case was split up and adjudicated by the Juvenile Justice Board. The remaining accused stood trial. The Trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) 324, 506 (ii) I.P.C., r/w. 34 I.P.C., and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 as against the accused A1 to A3 and A5.
3. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses, marked 11 exhibits and one Material Object. The Trial Court on appreciation of evidence convicted the appellants/Accused 1 to 3 & 5 for the following offences:-
| Sl.No. | Offence convicted | Fine/punishment imposed | Default sentence |
| 1. | 147 of I.P.C. | Fine of Rs.1,000/- imposed | In default to undergo one month S.I |
| 2. | 148 of I.P.C. | Sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. | In default to undergo 3 months S.I. |
| 3. | 341 of I.P.C. | Fine of Rs.500/- imposed | In default to undergo 3 months S.I. |
| 4. | 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 | Sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I., and Fine of Rs.1,000/- | In default to undergo 3 months S.I. |
| 5. | 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 | Sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I., and Fine of Rs.1,000/- | In default to undergo 3 months S.I. |
In respect of charge for the offences under Sections 324 I.P.C., and 3(2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, the Trial Court found 5th accused / Lakshmanan not guilty and acquitted him, however convicted the accused 1 to 3 alone for the said offences as under:-
| Sl.No. | Offence convicted | Fine/punishment imposed | Default sentence |
| 1. | 324 of I.P.C. | Sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I., and Fine of Rs.1,000/- | IIn default to undergo 3 months S.I. |
| 2. | 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 | Sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I., and Fine of Rs.1,000/- | In default to undergo 3 months S.I. |
4. The case of the prosecution unraveled through its witnesses is as under:-
On 06.11.2018 at about 5.30 p.m., Veerasamy (PW.1) an Auto driver was proceeding to Poo.Malaiyanur village via Keelapalayam, Ulundurpet Taluk with two passengers by name Selvam (PW.2) and Vanitha (PW.7). The Auto was intercepted by Surya (A1), Ramkumar (A2), Rajkumar (A3), Vinod (A4) (juvenile split up from the main case) and Lakshmanan (A5). They enquired Veerasamy (PW.1) about his place of residence. On coming to know that he hails from a Harijan colony, they started abusing him by his caste name and threatened him that he should not hereinafter enter into their area. The 1st accused, Surya hit PW.1 with the cricket stump on his head. Ramkumar (A.2) attacked him on the left shoulder. Lakshmanan (A.5) attacked him on the right shoulder and abused him. After abusing him using his caste name, PW.1 was let off PW.1 was taken to the hospital and got admitted in the Government hospital in Ulundurpet. The duty doctor examined him and issued Accident Register [Ex.P5]. He was treated for the head injury and pain on the shou
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for immediate F.I.R. registration, the significance of reliable evidence, and the burden of proof on the prosecution.
Point of law : Murder /Attempt to Murder - Conviction set aside – Delay in filing FIR - unexplained delay in registering the F.I.R. and dispatching the same to the concerned Court, and suppressing tw....
The prosecution must prove each element of the offence beyond a reasonable doubt, including the nature of injuries and adherence to procedural requirements in cases under the SC/ST (POA) Act.
The importance of prompt lodging of FIR in criminal cases and the need for evidence to establish the presence of the public at the time of the offense to satisfy the criteria of 'public view' under S....
The absence of corroborative evidence renders the sole testimony insufficient for conviction under criminal law.
Convictions under SC & ST (POA) Act must be supported by compelling and consistent evidence of caste-based abuse in public.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, and the court's duty to consider material contradictions in the e....
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
