Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 56885
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N.MANJULA, J
Muthukaruppan @ Karuppuraja – Appellant
Versus
State at Tamilnadu – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.592 of 2025 | C.M.P(MD)No. 6551 of 2025 | Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2019
For the Appellant: M/s.R.Ilayaraja
For the Respondents: Mr.A.Albert James, Mr.R.Gowri Shankar
The requirement of corroborative evidence is essential in determining the guilt under the SC/ST Act, but evidentiary delays are not necessarily fatal to prosecution.
Headnote:(A) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) - TN Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 - Section 4 - Criminal Appeal regarding conviction and sentence for offences under various sections, including SC/ST Act - The trial Court convicted the accused based primarily on the testimony of injured witnesses, despite some witnesses turning hostile - Court held that such delays in FIR registration are not fatal and emphasized mutual corroboration of evidence. (Paras 2-12)
(B) Appellate Court discretion - The appellate court found merit in reducing the severity of the sentences based on the appellant’s first-time offender status and absence of previous convictions, leading to modification in the punishment but affirming convictions. (Paras 16-17)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction based on consistent witness testimonies. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding fir delay and witness support. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. court findings on evidence corroboration. (Para 9 , 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 4. corroborative evidence supports the prosecution. (Para 10) |
| 5. court's reasoning for upholding conviction despite defenses. (Para 13) |
| 6. court modified punishment based on offender status. (Para 15) |
| 7. modification of punishment and compensation to victim. (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant / sole accused, challenging the order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of SC/ST (POA) Act Cases, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputhur, made in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2019.
2. The appellant is the sole accused who has been convicted for the offences under Section 4 of TNPHW Act read with Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance Act, 2015, Section 323 of IPC and under Section 324 of read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Ordinance Act 2015.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 14.01.2019, the accused went to the house of P.W.1 and pulled the hands of P.W.2, who is the wife of P.W.1 and asked her to share bed with him. P.W.2, informed about the occurrence to her husband / P.W.1. When the complainant /P.W.1 condemned the accused's behaviour, the accused abused P.W.1 in filthy language by making caste calling and scattered the fire woods stored there. He further attacked P.W.1 with kitchen knife, injured him and made life threats. P.W.1 took treatment at the Government Hospital, Thiruchuli, for the injuries sustained during the occurrence. A case was registered in Crime No. 17 of 2019 by the respondent police and it was taken up for investigation. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed. After taking cognizance in Spl.S.C.No.36 of 2019, charges have been framed for the offences under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act read with Section 4 of TNPHW Act, 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, alternate Section 294(b) of IPC, 323, 324 of read with 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 506(ii) of , against the accused.
4. On the side of the prosecution, twenty witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.20 and twenty six documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26. One material object has been marked as M.O.1. No oral or documentary evidence was let in by the accused, before the trial Court.
5. On completion of trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, after perusing the materials on record, the trial Judge found the accused guilty for the following offences and given with the punishments as shown under:
Offences under Sections
Punishment
Fine
Default clause
Section 4 of TNPHW Act read with Section 3(1)(w)(i) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance Act, 2015
Two years simple imprisonment
Rs.10,000/-
to undergo one month simple imprisonment
under Section 323 of IPC
Six months simple imprisonment
Rs.500/-
to undergo one month simple imprisonment
under Section 324 of read with Section 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance Act 2015
One year Simple Imprisonment
Rs.500/-
to undergo one month simple imprisonment
6. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence, the appellant / accused has preferred this appeal along with the petition to suspension of sentence.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that although the occurrence is said to have taken place on 14.01.2019, FIR has been registered on 18.01.2019 after a considerable delay and that was not properly appreciated by the trial Court. He further submitted that the eye witness have turned hostile and did not support the prosecution. But the trial Court relied only the evidence of P.W.1 in order to convict the accused and X-Ray of P.W.1 was not marked.
8. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent submitted that the allegations are very serious in nature.
9. On perusal of the records, it is seen that the tri
