Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(KER) 34203
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
C.S. Sudha, J
SHIBU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.A 107/2016
SRI.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92), SMT.T.J.MARIA GORETTI
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt benefits the accused, leading to acquittal in this case.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xi) – Appeal against conviction for offences of trespass, causing hurt, and criminal intimidation – The trial court found the accused guilty based on the testimony of the victim and her husband; however, the appellate court found insufficient evidence to support the conviction, particularly regarding intent to dishonour the victim's modesty and the lack of independent corroboration. (Paras 8, 12, 14, 15)
(B) Burden of proof – The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and any reasonable doubt must benefit the accused. (Paras 12, 15)
Facts of the case: The accused was convicted for trespassing and assaulting a member of the scheduled caste, allegedly motivated by caste prejudice. The incident arose from a property dispute.
Findings of Court: The appellate court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, particularly regarding the intent to dishonour the victim.
Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence were sustainable based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the prosecution's failure to produce the original complaint and the reliance on the victim's testimony, which was deemed insufficient, warranted the acquittal of the accused.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
J U D G M E N T
In this appeal filed under Section 374 (2) Cr.P.C., the appellant who is the accused in S.C.No.385/2014 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Manjeri challenges the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 506 IPC and 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST(POA) Act.
2. The prosecution case is that on 03/12/2013 at 07:00 a.m., the accused trespassed into the residential compound of PW5 and PW7 and voluntarily caused hurt to PW5 by catching hold of her hair and pulled her resulting in her dress being torn. The accused beat PW5 on the shoulder and neck. He also threatened to do away with her. The aforesaid acts were done by the accused knowing that PW5 is a member of the scheduled caste and the accused also abused and insulted her by calling her caste name. Hence as per the final report, the accused was alleged to have committed the offences punishable under the above mentioned Sections.
3. On the basis of Ext.P8 complaint of PW5, Crime no.745/2013, that is, Ext.P11 FIR, was registered by PW9, the Senior CPO, Perumpadappu police station alleging the commission of the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, Part I of 506 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Investigation was conducted by PW10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tirur, who on completion of investigation, filed the final report alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences.
4. After the accused appeared before the trial court, on 11/09/2014 a charge under Sections 447, 323, 506(i) IPC and Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act was framed, read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW10 were examined and Exts.P1 to P13 and M.O.I and M.O.II were got marked.
5. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution. The accused denied those circumstances and maintained his innocence. He also submitted that his mother had purchased 5 cents of property for valuable consideration from Ammu, the mother of PW5, a few years back. Thereafter, the accused along with his parents and sister were residing in the house constructed in the property. Though the property was purchased, registration of the sale deed was not effected by Ammu. This resulted in frequent quarrels between Ammu and the mother of the accused. While so on 27/11/2013, PW5 along with members of the thozhilurappu scheme of the panchayath cut and removed some plants standing in the boundary of the property of the accused. On 03/12/2013 at 07:00 a.m., this was questioned by the mother of the accused. An altercation ensued between PW5 and his mother which ended in a scuffle between them. In the scuffle, both of them fell down. Later, on 07/12/2013 PW5 contacted the Union leaders of the scheduled caste community and in collusion with them filed a false complaint against the accused under the influence and instigation of the Union leaders.
6. As the trial court did not find it a fit case to acquit the accused under Section 232 Cr.P.C., he was asked to enter on his defence and adduce evidence in support thereof. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the accused.
7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, the trial court by the impugned judgment found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Section 447, 323 and Part I of 506 IPC and 3(1) (xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The accused has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to a fine of ₹5,000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the SC/ST (POA) Act; to rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 447 IPC and to rigorous imprisonment for six months each for the offen
