Back
BEFORE THE
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
Ganesh - Appellant
Versus
State Rep by The Deputy Superintendent of Police - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD)No.133 of 2019
Decided on :
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 294(b), 323, 354 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(X), 3(1)(Xi) - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence - The appellants were convicted for various offences including assault and caste-based insults, but the court found the prosecution's case unproven due to lack of credible evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies. (Paras 11, 19, 20)
(B) Burden of proof - The prosecution must establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court found that the evidence presented did not meet this standard. (Paras 11, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of assaulting P.W.1 and using caste-based insults on 19.10.2011. The case was registered following a complaint by P.W.1, but the appellants claimed it was a counter-complaint stemming from an earlier incident.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the allegations against the appellants, citing inconsistencies and lack of credible evidence.
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt and the credibility of the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence and the inconsistencies in witness statements led to the conclusion that the charges were unproven.
Result: The conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants were set aside, and they were acquitted of all charges.
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants in S.C.No.44 of 2012 by judgment dated 15.03.2019, by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for PRC Cases (Sessions Court), Sivagangai.
2. The accused in S.C.No.44 of 2012, on the file learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for PRC Cases, Sivagangai District have filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on them by the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2019 in S.C.No.44 of 2012, by the learned Judge, Special Court for PRC Cases, Sivagangai District.
| Sl. No | Accused No. | Offence Punishable under Section | Sentence of Imprisonment and fine |
| 1 | A1 & A2 | 294(b) of IPC | To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. |
| 2 | A1 & A2 | 323 of IPC | To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. |
| 3 | A1 & A2 | 354 of IPC | 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment. |
| 4 | A1 & A2 | 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, | 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment. |
| 5 | A1 & A2 | 3(1)(Xi) of SC/ST Act, | 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment. |
| 6 | A3 | 294(b) of IPC | To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. |
| 7 | A3 | 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, | 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment. |
3.On 19.10.2011 at about 05.00 p.m., while P.W.1 was returning home after grazing cattle A1 to A3 had abused her with filthy language and insulted her by her caste name and A1 had caught hold the hair of P.W.1 and had beaten her with hands and when P.W.2 her mother in law came to her rescue A3 & A2 had beaten her with hands. Hence a case was registered in Crime No. 71 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X), 3(1)(Xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. After investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report before the Special Court for PCR Cases, Sivagangai The same was taken on file in S.C.No.44 of 2012.
4.In the meantime, A1 herein has given a complaint in this regard at the very same police station, which was taken on file in Crime No.70 of 2011 and after conducting investigation, final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirupthur. The same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.32 of 2013. On 13.11.2014, the same was dismissed.
5.After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellants, framed charges under Sections 294(b), 323, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X), 3(1)(Xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and the same were read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.
6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 16 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and no material objects were marked. On the side of the appellant D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked.
7.The learned Trial Judge after completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against them in the prosecution evidence and the appellants denied as false. The learned trial judge, after considering the same, convicted the appellants as stated above.
8.The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions:
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on the same day, 19.10.2011, at 05.00 pm., P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4 herein had abused the first appellan
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and failure to provide credible evidence results in acquittal.
For an offence under the SC/ST Act, the insult must occur in public view with independent witnesses present; absence of such evidence leads to acquittal under this Act.
Independent witness testimony is crucial for establishing offences under the SC/ST Act; absence of such evidence resulted in acquittal under that section while confirming convictions under IPC.
Insufficient evidence for caste-based abuse under SC/ST Act and lack of annoyance for IPC 294(b) conviction led to partial allowance of appeal.
Insufficient evidence of public view undermines SC/ST Act charges; mere abusive language not enough for IPC Section 294(b) without proof of annoyance; conviction for injury under IPC Section 323 conf....
Conviction under IPC for assault confirmed; however, SC/ST Act charges dismissed due to failure to prove insult in public view as required by law.
The absence of independent witnesses undermines the prosecution's case under the SC/ST Act, confirming the necessity of public view for establishing caste-based offences.
The court elucidated that the requirements of public view and corroborative evidence are critical to establish an offense under the SC/ST Act, highlighting the necessity of independent witnesses and ....
The prosecution must prove allegations of caste-based insults beyond reasonable doubt, requiring corroborative evidence, especially in cases involving public view.
The court held that inconsistent evidence and lack of independent witnesses failed to prove the appellant's insults and threats were made in public view, leading to acquittal under the SC/ST Act.
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
