IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 20.11.2023 CORAM:

The Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Crl.A.No.102 of 2017

1.Kumar @ Senthil Kumar

2.Selvi

3.Velmurugan

4.Ravikumar Mandal

5.Saloon Mani @ Subramani ... Appellant/Accused 1 to 5 -Vs-

State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, South Police Station, Erode Town Sub Division, Erode District.

(Crime No.648 of 2015) ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer:- Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellants by judgment dated 30.01.2017 made in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Erode.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Vignesh for M/s.C.S.Saravanan For Respondent : Mrs.G.V.Kasthuri Additional Public Prosecutor

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal is filed by the Accused 1 to 5, who had suffered conviction and sentence of imprisonment, challenging the judgment dated 30.01.2017 made in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Erode.

2.The Appellants are arrayed as A-1 to A5 in Spl.S.C.No.69 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Erode, which is the Special Court for Exclusive Trial of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1980. The learned Counsel for the Appellants invited the attention of this Court to the Charges framed by the trial Court. As per the charges, the first charge relates to the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1980 as amended as on 2014 against the Accused No.2. The second charge relates to the offence under Section 147 of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 5. The third charge relates to the offence under Section 274(b) of IPC against the Accused Nos.1 to 5. The fourth charge relates to the offence under Section 323 of IPC against the Accused 1, 3 to 5. The fifth charge relates to the offence under Section 324 of IPC against the second Accused alone. The six charge relates to the offence under Section

3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, 1980 as amended as on 2014 against the Accused No.1. Since the Accused 1 to 5 denied the charges, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Erode ordered trial. In the trial, the Prosecution had examined nine witness as P.W-1 to P.W-9 and marked sixteen exhibits as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-16. The defence side two documents were marked as Ex.D-1 and Ex.D-2 and one material object as M.O-1. 3.The learned Counsel for the Appellants invited the attention of this Court to the deposition of P.W-1 to P.W-9 and Ex.P-1 complaint, Ex.P-2 copy of Accident Register of P.W-1 issued by Kovai Medical Centre, Erode, Ex.P-3 wound certificate of P.W-1 issued by Kovai Medical Centre, Erode. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that P.W-1 is the injured complainant. P.W-2 is the Doctor who treated him at Kovai Medical Centre at Erode and issued Ex.P-2 and P-3 to P.W-1. P.W-3 is the father of P.W-1. P.W-4 is the friend of P.W-1 and P.W-5 and P.W-6 are his relatives. P.W-7 also his friend. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that P.W-8 and P.W-9 are official witnesses viz., P.W-8- Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR under Ex.P-6 based on the complaint Ex.P-1 of P.W.1 and P.W-9 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who conducted the investigation and laid final report. Except P.W-8 and P.W-9, all other witnesses are interested witnesses related to P.W-1 and P.W-3. P.W-4, P.W-5 and P.W-7 turned hostile.

4.It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that on perusal of the deposition of P.W-1 itself, one can find that P.W-1 had not deposed the truth before the Court. As per his evidence, he was attacked by A-1 and A