Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
Nepoleon @ Nedunchezhiyan - Appellants
Vs.
State by The Dy. Superintendent of Police - Respondent
CRL. A. NO.234 OF 2021
Decided On : 02-08-2024
JUDGMENT :
M. DHANDAPANI, J.
The judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge dated 14.12.2020 in S.C. No.141 of 2015 in and by which the appellants have been convicted and sentenced has been put to test by the appellants before this Court by filing the present appeal.
2. The appellants, who were arrayed as A-1 to A-5stood charged for the offences as under :-
| S. No. | Array of Accused | Section of Offence Charged |
| 1 | A-1, A-4 & A-5 | U/s 147 IPC |
| 2 | A-2 & A-3 | U/s 148 IPC |
| 3 | A-1 to A-5 | U/s 294 (b) IPC |
| 4 | A-1 | U/s 323 IPC |
| 5 | A-2 to A-5 | U/s 323 r/w 149 IPC |
| 6 | A-4 & A-5 | U/s 323 IPC |
| 7 | A-1 to A-3 | U/s 323 r/w 149 IPC |
| 8 | A-1 & A-3 to A-5 | U/s 323 IPC |
| 9 | A-2 | U/s 323 r/w 149 IPC |
| 10 | A-2 | U/s 324 IPC |
| 11 | A-1 & A-3 to A-5 | U/s 324 r/w 149 IPC |
| 12 | A-3 | U/s 324 IPC |
| 13 | A-1, A-2, A-4 & A-5 | U/s 324 r/w 149 IPC |
| 14 | A-1 | U/s 3 (1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act as amended by Ordinance, 2014 |
| 15 | A-2 to A-5 | U/s 3 (1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act as amended by Ordinance, 2014 |
| 16 | A-1 to A-5 | U/s 3 (2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act as amended by Ordinance, 2014 |
3. After trial, the accused were found guilty and were convicted and sentenced for the offences as under :-
| S. No. | Array of Accused | Conviction & Sentence |
| 1 | A-1, A-4 & A-5 | Convicted u/s 147 IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for two years. Convicted u/s 294 (b) IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 3 months. U/s 323 IPC (2 counts) and sentenced to undergo RI for two years for each count. U/s 324 r/w 149 IPC (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for two years for each count. U/s 3 (1)(r) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 9 months for each count. U/s 3 (1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 9 months for each count. U/s 3 (2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 6 months for each count. |
| 2 | A-2 | U/s 148 IPC sentenced to undergo RI for three years. U/s 294 (b) IPC sentenced to undergo RI for three months. U/s 294 (b) IPC sentenced to undergo RI for three months. U/s 323 r/w 149 IPC (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for one year for each count. U/s 324 IPC (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for two years for each count. U/s 3 (1)(r) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 9 months for each count. U/s 3 (1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 9 months for each count. U/s 3 (2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 6 months for each count. |
| 3 | A-3 | U/s 148 IPC sentenced to undergo RI for three years. U/s 323 r/w 149 IPC (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for one year for each count. U/s 324 IPC (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for two years for each count. U/s 324 r/w 149 IPC sentenced to undergo RI for two years for each count. U/s 3 (1)(r) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 9 months for each count. U/s 3 (1)(s) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 9 months for each count. U/s 3 (2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act (2 counts) sentenced to undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo SI for 6 months for each count. |
The aforesaid sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence imposed on the respective accused, the present appeal has been filed assailing the said judgment.
3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :-
There was a temple festival at Vinayagar and Mariamman Koil at Veppampoondi on 30.06.2014 in which there was a music program at 8.00 p.m. People in the said locality were listening to
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....
Sufficient evidence must link alleged acts to an intent to humiliate based on caste identity for the application of the SC/ST Act.
Mere allegations without evidence of public view do not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless insults target caste identity in a public context.
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....
For convictions under SC/ST Act, incidents must occur in public view; however, discrepancies in witness accounts do not negate credible evidence of assault leading to murder.
The court clarified the interpretation of 'within public view' in the context of the Atrocities Act, holding that a place can be considered 'within public view' even if it is a private place, provide....
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
