Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Nirmal Kumar, J
R.Elavarasan – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Sub Division, Villupuram District. – Respondent
Crl.A.No.394 of 2014

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.T.Saikrishnan
For the Respondents:Mr.L.Baskaran, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
For Defacto Complainant: Ms.J.Madhumitha, Legal Aid Counsel

The court upheld the conviction of the accused for their roles in a communal mob attack, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness accounts and evidence in ensuring justice for victims of communal violence.

Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(x) - IPC - Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 - Criminal Appeal challenging conviction and sentence of trial Court for offences of rioting and assault, resulting in injuries to multiple persons due to an orchestrated attack exacerbated by communal tensions. (Paras 3, 21)

(B) Conviction properly established against appellants for distinct roles in the attack prompting communal hatred, with essential proofs from eyewitness accounts and medical corroboration of injuries sustained. (Paras 21, 18, 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of leading a violent mob attack following an incident involving a tractor causing injury to a victim. This attack involved direct threats and communal abuse, leading to multiple injuries and property damage. The case centered around a longstanding communal dispute aggravated by previous tensions. (Paras 6, 7, 20)

Findings of Court:
The trial Court had rightly convicted the appellants based on eye witness accounts and evidence confirming their participation in the riot, upholding the need for accountability in communal violence. (Para 21)

Issues: The main issue addressed is the substantiation of communal violence and the role of accused in the orchestrated mob attack during a prior communal dispute. (Para 14)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirms that a properly conducted trial supported by eyewitnesses and corroborated medical evidence justifies convictions, especially where communal issues and assaults are involved. (Para 21)

Result: This Criminal Appeal stands dismissed confirming the impugned judgment.

Table of Content
1. overview of the appeal and the nature of the offences committed. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6)
2. arguments related to the communal dynamics influencing the events. (Para 11 , 14 , 19)
3. defence claims against unjustified prosecution. (Para 12 , 13)
4. final judgment confirming the trial court's decision. (Para 21 , 22 , 23)

JUDGMENT

Challenging the impugned judgment dated 23.06.2014 in S.C.No.192 of 2010 passed by the learned Special Judge (Principal Sessions Judge), Villupuram Sessions Division, Villupuram (trial Court), this Criminal Appeal is filed by the appellants/A1, A5, A7, A15, A18 & A21.

2.For convenience and clarity, the appellants are referred to as accused, as per their rank, in the impugned judgment.

3.The conviction and sentence of the trial Court are as follows:

Rank of the Accused	Offence	Conviction and Sentence
A1	For offence under Sections 148 & 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w 149 IPC.	● Convicted and Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 148 IPC. ● Convicted and Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 323 IPC. ● Convicted and Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w 149 IPC.
		pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 323 IPC. ● Convicted and Sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two months for offence under Section 3 (1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 r/w 149 IPC.
A5, A7, A15, A18 & A21	For offence under Sections 148 & 323 r/w 149 of IPC.	● Convicted and Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months each for offence under Section 148 IPC. ● Convicted and Sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months each for offence under Section 323 r/w 149 IPC.
A1, A3 to A10, A14 to A23, A25 and A26	For offence under Section 147 IPC	Found Not Guilty
A2 & A13	For offence under Section 148 IPC	Found Not Guilty
	A3, A4, A6, For offence under Section	Found Not Guilty
A2 & A13	For offence under Section 324 IPC	Found Not Guilty
A22, A23, A25 & A26	For offence under Section 427 IPC	Found Not Guilty
A3 & A9	For offence under Section 427 r/w 149 IPC	Found Not Guilty
A1	For offence under Section 506(ii) IPC	Found Not Guilty
A2, A12 & A13	Charges Abated	Charges Abated

4.Earlier, this appeal came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 02.11.2018, against which, the appellants herein preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P(Crl.)No.2578 of 2020. The grievances of the appellants therein was that this Court dismissed this appeal in the absence of the appellants without hearing them or their counsel. In view of above said submission and on perusal of the impugned judgment of this Court dated 02.11.2018, the Hon'ble Apex Court found that the appeal was dismissed in the absence of the appellants without hearing them or their counsel and the appellants were not given opportunity to appear or to engage another counsel, not even the next date fixed was intimated to the appellants. In view of the facts and circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the judgment passed by this Court on 02.11.2018 cannot be sustained in law, hence, set aside the judgment and the appeal is remitted back to the file of this Court for fresh consideration.

5.This Court on 17.03.2025 had passed the following order: “Pursuant to the orders passed by this Court on 03.03.2025

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 60577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASM.Nirmal Kumar, JR.Elavarasan – AppellantVersusThe State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Sub Division, Villupuram District. – RespondentCrl.A.No.394 of 2014

The court upheld the conviction of the accused for their roles in a communal mob attack, emphasizing the importance of eyewitness accounts and evidence in ensuring justice for victims of communal violence.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.Nirmal Kumar, J
R.Elavarasan – Appellant
Versus
The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Villupuram Sub Division, Villupuram District. – Respondent
Crl.A.No.394 of 2014