1

BAIL SLIP

The Appellant/Accused namely Ganeshan, aged about 28 years

S/o Gandhi was directed to be released on bail as per order of this

court dated 16.10.2014 made in MP(MD)No.1 of 2014 in Crl.A(MD)No.279

of 2014 on the file of the Court.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reservation

31.07.2019

Date of Judgment

08.11.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.KRISHNAVALLI

Crl.A.(MD)No.279 of 2014

Ganeshan : Appellant/Sole Accused

Vs.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Thirumayam,

Pudukkottai District. : Respondent/Complainant

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the

Criminal Procedure Code against the judgement of the Special and

Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, in SC No.112 of 2012, dated 23.09.2014.

For Appellant : Mr.P.Ganapathi Subramanian

For Respondent : Mr.R.Anandharaj

Additional Public Prosecutor

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgement passed

by the Special and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, in SC No.112 of

2012, dated 23.09.2014.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2012 when the

de-facto complainant was going to attend the Mariamman temple

function, due to previous motive the accused abused him by saying

his caste name and subsequently, he bite his left ear and thereby

caused grievous injury. The Deputy Superintendent of Police attached

to Thirumayam Police Station, has filed a final report against the

accused examining the witnesses.

3.The trial court, on proper appreciation of the evidence

both oral and documentary, found the accused guilty, convicted the

appellant for the offence under Sections 294, 326 IPC and Section 3

(i)(x) of SC/ST Act and awarded the rigorous imprisonment for 3

months and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo

imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC

and 2 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-,

in default to undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

1

under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act and 5 years rigorous

imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo

imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 326 IPC and

directed to run the sentences concurrently and also directed to pay

Rs.15,000/- towards compensation to the de-facto complainant.

Aggrieved by the judgement of the trial court, the appellant/accused

is before this court.

4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on

record.

5.The first contention raised on the side of the

appellant/accused is that for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of

SC/ST (P) Act, the prosecution has to prove that a member of non

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community has insulted a member of

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community in public view naturally

in public place, but in this case, PW1 in his complaint

categorically stated that on 22.02.2012 at 6.45 pm, when he stood on

the back portion of his house, the accused came and reported about

his brother Murugadoss and he requested that only his brother has

transaction with him and so asked the accused to contact his brother

and due to it, quarrel arose between PW1 and the accused and the

accused used filthy language calling his caste name and as the

occurrence was not taken place in the public place, the offence

under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1986

are not made out and prays that the accused is entitled to

acquittal. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/accused submitted a ruling reported in (2016)4 MLJ (Crl)

509 (Muruganantham and another Vs. State represented by Inspector of

Police, Pollachi Taluk Police Station, Coim