The misrepresentation of community status precludes application of SC/ST Act protections; unlawful labor compulsion is actionable under Section 374 IPC.

JUDGMENT

The appellant was convicted by judgment dated 31.03.2022 in Special S.C.No.27 of 2018 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem (Special Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ) and sentenced to undergo seven years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo nineteen months Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 370 IPC and further the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo fifteen months Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 3 (1)(vi) of . The appellant acquitted from the charges under Sections 294(b) & 506(ii) of and Sections 3 (1)(x) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amended Act, 2016. Challenging the conviction and sentence, this criminal appeal is filed.

2.In this case one of the offence is Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 , hence, this Court on 10.02.2025 ordered notice to the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant/PW1 through the jurisdictional Police to inform the pendency of the present appeal. Notice served to the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant through the jurisdictional Police and she gave a letter stating that she is not in a position to engage an Advocate and further she is suffering from ailments. Considering the same, this Court by order dated 26.02.2025 appointed Ms.C.B.Geeth Sanchitha as Legal Aid Counsel for the 2^nd respondent/defacto complainant.

3.Case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant/PW1, mother of the victim boy/PW2 lodged a complaint on 07.08.2017 to the 1^st respondent Police stating that she was residing with her husband and her minor son/PW2 at Housing Board Colony, Salathampatti, Salem and they belong to Scheduled Caste community. The defacto complainant/PW1 and her husband took a loan of Rs.20,000/- at the rate of 10% interest from the appellant eight months prior to the occurrence and the monthly interest was Rs.2,000/-. For four months, the defacto complainant/PW1 was able to pay the interest, thereafter, defaulted in payment of interest. The appellant who gave loan, came to the house of the defacto complainant/PW1, abused them using filthy language, forcibly took her minor son/PW2 informing that he will be working in his Chennai Mess run by the appellant as bonded labour till the loan amount is paid back. After two months, the defacto complainant/PW1 and her husband went to Chennai Mess and pleaded with the appellant to relieve their minor son/PW2 from forced labour but the appellant refused. Thereafter, a complaint lodged to the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem for bonded labour. On coming to know about the same, the appellant beaten and chased out PW2 from the bonded labour. Annoyed over the complaint, the appellant, his wife and son came to the house of defacto complainant/PW1, abused them by calling their caste name and threatened that they will be done away and forced the defacto complainant/PW1 to withdraw the complaint. Fearing for life, the complaint (Ex.P1) lodged to the respondent Police by the defacto complainant/PW1. PW11/Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint (Ex.P1), registered FIR (Ex.P6) in Crime No.383 of 2017 for offence under Section 370 IPC , Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2003 and Sections 3 (1)(vi) & 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and submitted the com