SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2694

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.
Jayamani - Petitioner
Versus
The Sate represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police and ors. - Respondents
Crl.A.(MD).No.118 of 2020
Decided On : 07-04-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.M.Maharaja
For the Respondent:Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate

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.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 355 - Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Appeal against conviction and sentence under various IPC sections and the SC/ST Act - The appellant challenged the conviction, claiming false allegations due to personal motive - Court highlighted importance of evidence from independent witnesses and affirmed that the prosecution failed to establish the offence under SC/ST Act, while confirming convictions under IPC sections. (Paras 5, 9, 10)

(B) Evidence - Independent witnesses - For the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, it is essential to have testimonies from independent persons to establish that the humiliation occurred in public view - The absence of such evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant under this section. (Paras 5.1, 7)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of attacking the complainant due to a money dispute, which involved verbal abuse using caste references and physical assault. The complainant was hospitalized due to injuries.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution established the offences under IPC sections but not under the SC/ST Act as no independent witnesses corroborated the public humiliation claim.

Issues: The main questions were whether the alleged act occurred in public view and the credibility of witness testimonies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that for SC/ST Act applicability, independent witness testimony is crucial. Without it, the charge under Section 3(1)(x) could not be sustained despite other IPC convictions.

Result: The appeal is partly allowed with the conviction under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act set aside, while convictions under IPC sections are confirmed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appellant's case and initial court findings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. discrepancies in witness statements regarding public view requirement. (Para 4)
3. definition of 'public view' for sc/st act. (Para 5)
4. insufficient evidence to support caste-based claims. (Para 6 , 7)
5. confirmation of ipc convictions; sc/st acquittal. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT :

K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.

The appellant/Accused No.1 in S.C.No.160 of 2011, on the file of the PCR Court, Sivagangai, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, in S.C.No.160 of 2011, dated 04.04.2019, by the PCR Court, Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant.

2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case reads as follows:

2.1. Due to money dispute between the brother of the complainant and the accused, on 22.06.2011, at about 04.00 p.m, when the defacto complainant was proceeding towards his daughter's house, located at Sowmianarayanapuram, Kurunji Nagar, the appellant and other two accused are said to have accosted him and abused him in filthy language by calling his caste name and also attacked him with their hands and a broom and caused injuries. Further, they threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Government hospital, Thirupathur. For further treatment, he was shifted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.6. The same was registered in Crime No.40 of 2011, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 355 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “SC/ST Act”). Thereafter, P.W.12 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.15 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur.

2.2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, found that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, is triable only by the Sessions Court and committed the case under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C., to the learned PCR Court, Sivagangai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.160 of 2011. Then, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

2.3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and marked 1 material object as M.O.1. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after explaining the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on their side.

2.4. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellant and the other accused, the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 04.04.2019 and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:-

Accused No.1Convicted under SectionSentence of Imprisonment/ fine imposed
341 of IPCto pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.
294(b) of IPCto pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.
323 of IPCto pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to under Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.
355 of PCto pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.
3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month.

3. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

4. This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the records and the impugned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top