Madras High Court Overturns Conviction in Assault Case, Cites Witness Discrepancies and Lack of Evidence

MADURAI: The Madras High Court has acquitted four men of all charges, including a conviction for simple hurt under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in a case involving an alleged assault and caste-based abuse. Justice K. Murali Shankar, setting aside the trial court's judgment, highlighted significant contradictions in witness testimonies, the questionable credibility of eyewitnesses, and the prosecution's failure to establish key ingredients for the offences.

The court was hearing two cross-appeals: one filed by the accused challenging their conviction under Section 323 IPC, and another by the complainant, Kanagaraj, against their acquittal from more serious charges under the IPC and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

---

Background of the Case

The prosecution's case originated from an incident on February 24, 2019. The complainant, Kanagaraj, a member of the Hindu Pallar community, alleged that four men from different communities assaulted him. He claimed they beat him, kicked him, removed his dhoti, and abused him with casteist slurs in a public place. The motive was attributed to a pre-existing enmity stemming from the complainant reporting the accused for illegal sand mining.

The Special Court for SC/ST (PoA) Act cases in Thoothukudi partially accepted the prosecution's case. It acquitted the accused of charges related to obscene acts (S. 294(b) IPC), criminal intimidation (S. 506(2) IPC), and all offences under the SC/ST Act. However, it convicted them for causing simple hurt (S. 323 IPC) and imposed a fine of ₹1,000 each.

---

Arguments Before the High Court

• Complainant's Counsel: Argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused of the graver offences. It was contended that multiple witnesses testified to the public humiliation, caste-based insults, and threats to kill, which were sufficient to prove the charges under the SC/ST Act and Section 506(2) IPC.

• Accused's Counsel: Contended that the entire case was fabricated due to prior enmity over sand mining activities. The defense highlighted that the alleged eyewitnesses were not mentioned in the initial complaint, their testimonies were riddled with contradictions, and some had personal motives to falsely implicate the accused. They also pointed out the lack of any visible injuries on the complainant, despite allegations of a severe assault.

---

High Court's Analysis and Pivotal Findings

Justice K. Murali Shankar conducted a detailed re-appreciation of the evidence and found the prosecution's case to be riddled with doubt.

1. Unreliable Witnesses: The Court noted that the eyewitnesses (P.W.3 to P.W.5) were not mentioned in the complainant's detailed initial complaint. Their presence at the late-night scene was found to be highly suspicious. - P.W.3 was found to have a prior dispute with the accused, and his daughter-in-law had filed a separate FIR against them for an incident that allegedly occurred at the same time. - P.W.4 , a relative of the complainant, gave contradictory statements about his mode of transport and admitted the crime scene was dark with no lights. - The scribe of the complaint (P.W.2) turned hostile, further weakening the prosecution's foundation.

2. Failure to Prove Specific Offences: The judgment meticulously broke down why the charges failed to stand legal scrutiny. - On Section 294(b) IPC (Obscenity): The Court cited the Supreme Court's ruling in N.S. Madhanagopal vs. K. Lalitha , stating, "Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294(b) IPC." To qualify as obscene, the words must have a lascivious element or appeal to prurient interests. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove that the words caused "annoyance to others," a key ingredient of the offence.

• On Section 506(2) IPC (Criminal Intimidation): The Court observed a contradiction between the threat mentioned in the complaint ("vacate the village") and the one alleged in testimony ("threatened to kill"). Citing the apex court's decision in Manik Taneja , the judge emphasized that "Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient." The prosecution did not show that the complainant actually felt intimidated.

• On Section 323 IPC (Simple Hurt): The Court found the conviction for simple hurt unsustainable. The medical officer (P.W.6) testified to finding no external injuries on the complainant. The doctor also noted that the complainant did not mention experiencing pain from the alleged attack. This medical evidence, combined with contradictions about whether the assault was with hands or sticks, led the court to conclude that the charge was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

Final Verdict

Based on these findings, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had "miserably failed" to prove its case. The court held that the trial judge had erroneously convicted the accused under Section 323 IPC without properly considering the glaring contradictions and lack of corroborative evidence.

The court delivered a two-fold order: 1. Crl.A.(MD)No.573 of 2022 (Complainant's Appeal): Dismissed, upholding the acquittal of the accused from charges under the SC/ST Act and other IPC sections. 2. Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023 (Accused's Appeal): Allowed, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 323 IPC.

All accused were acquitted of all charges, their bail bonds were cancelled, and any fine paid was ordered to be refunded.