Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M.S. RAMESH, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
Yuvaraj – Appellant
Versus
State rep. by The Additional Superintendent of Police CBCID, Namakkal District & Others – Respondents
Crl.A.(MD).Nos. 228, 230, 232, 233, 515, 536 & 747 of 2022
Decided On : 02-06-2023
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., r/w 14A(1) Sc/ST Act, to call for the records relating to the judgment passed in Spl.SC.No.31 of 2019 dated 08.03.2022, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, [Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases (PCR)] Madurai and set aside the same and acquit the Appellant/Accused No.1 from all the charges levelled against him.)
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
1. To facilitate analysis and for ease of reference, this judgment is structured in the following way:
| S No | Segment Heading | Paragraphs |
| I. | PRELUDE | 2 |
| II. | THE APPEALS | 3-5 |
| III. | CASE OF THE PROSECUTION | 6-59 |
| IV. | PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT | 60-67 |
| V. | THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS | 68-73 |
| VI. | DISCUSSION | 74-252 |
| VII. | CONDUCT OF PW-4 | 253-255 |
| VIII. | OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE ON THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT | 256-270 |
| IX. | APPEALS AGAINST ACQUITTAL AND APPEAL SEEKING ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE | 271- 284 |
| X. | THE APPEALS OF A13 AND A14 | 285-290 |
| XI. | MODIFICATION OF CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IN RESPECT OF A1-A3 & A8-A12 | 291-295 |
| XII. | FINAL CONCLUSIONS | 296-298 |
I. PRELUDE
2. This is a case which brings out the dark side of human behaviour. It focuses our attention to the ugly facets of our society; the caste system, bigotry, inhuman treatment of persons belonging to the marginalised section, et al. En-route, this Court is confronted with the now familiar scourge of witnesses conveniently turning hostile in a deliberate bid to derail and deflect the course of justice. Cases such as this are textbook examples of how the criminal justice system can be easily manipulated and won over by witnesses who suborn at the drop of a hat. This has virtually become the norm in high profile cases with the added pressure of the press and social media, the technical challenges posed in proving a large body of electronic evidence. These factors undoubtedly cast an additional burden on the judges who are tasked with the duty of deciding this case. Despite such pressures, the judges must rise to meet these challenges and ultimately render justice within the parameters of the law.
II. THE APPEALS
3. There are seven appeals before us. Four of these have been filed by the accused persons viz.,
* Criminal Appeal (MD) No.228 of 2022 filed by A1
* Criminal Appeal (MD).No. 230 of 2022 filed by A2 and A3
* Criminal Appeal (MD).No.232 of 2022 filed by A13 and A14 and;
* Criminal Appeal (MD).No. of 233 of 2022 filed by A8-A12
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Court-III (Special Judge for SC & ST Act cases), Madurai, made in Special S.C.No.31 of 2019, dated 08.03.2022, convicting and sentencing them in the following manner:
| Sl. No. | Rank of the accused | Offence under which convicted | Sentence/ Punishment |
| 1. | A1 to A3 and A8 to A14 | Section 120B r/w 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment. |
| 2. | A1 | Section 302 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment. |
| 3. | A1 to A3 and A8 to A11 | Section 364 IPC r/w Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. | Life Imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo three years Rigorous Imprisonment. |
| 4. | A13 and A14 | Section 212 IPC | Five years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. |
| 5. | A13 and A14 | Section 216 IPC | Five years Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment. |
4. The fifth appeal viz., Criminal Appeal (MD) No.536 of 2022 has been filed by the State of Tamil Nadu challenging the aforesaid order insofar it concerns the acquittal of A4 to A7 and A15 from all charges. The sixth a
Point of Law – POCSO – Sentence - certificate under S. 65B(4) is unnecessary if the “original document” itself is produced, since it is being used as primary evidence of the information contained in ....
Appellate courts cannot reverse a trial court acquittal solely on a difference of opinion; interference requires proof of perversity. Evidence from crime scene re-enactments is admissible as non-test....
The court reaffirms that police conduct during official duties must not infringe on rights, prioritizing eyewitness testimony in establishing guilt over medical evidence, thus validating convictions ....
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
