Partly allowed

Chinndurai, Aged 49 Years, v. the State Represented by

Madras HC3 Nov 2022CRL A/427/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the principal arguments challenging the conviction but, recognizing the appellant's advanced age, reduced the sentence for the scheduled caste atrocity offence from one year to six months while confirming convictions for public nuisance and voluntarily causing hurt.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for offence under Section 3(i)(x) SC/ST Act reduced from one year to six months; conviction otherwise confirmed.

Chinndurai, Aged 49 Years, Vs the State Represented by — Caste Atrocities | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 03.11.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶7

Chinnadurai ... Appellant

¶8

¶9

The State Represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jayankondam Taluk, T.Palur Police Station (Crime No.135 of 2015) ... Respondent

¶10

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the record in relation to Judgment dated 12.06.2018 in Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur and set aside the Judgment.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Tamilavel For Respondent : Mr.A.Gopinath, Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

This Criminal Appeal is arising out of the Judgment dated 12.06.2018

¶14

passed in Special Sessions Case No.6 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, thereby convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and 3(i)(x) of the

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 10

¶16

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶17

Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

¶18

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2015 at about 9.35 a.m., the de-facto complainant and his wife went to the house of the first accused, who was meant the President of Panchayat, asking for goat on a scheme. For which, the first accused has scolded them in filthy language and abused them with their caste and also attacked with wooden log and hands. When the wife of the de-facto complainant intercepted, he also attacked her by wooden log and hands, thereby they sustained injuries and admitted in the hospital. On receipt of the complaint, the respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.135 of 2015 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

¶19

There are totally four accused. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court in Spl.S.C.No.6 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

¶20

On the side of the prosecution, they examined P.Ws.1 to 12 and marked Exs.P1 to P12. The prosecution produced material object No.1. On the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 10

¶21

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶22

side of the appellant, no one was examined and no document was marked.

¶23

On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo three weeks simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. He was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and he was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The Trial Court acquitted the other accused persons. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that even according to the de-facto complainant, he along with his wife went to the house of the appellant asked why to make the arrangement to give goats to their family. The appellant replied that they are not entitled for any goat under any scheme, since they possessed goats and cattle. That apart, one of the family members was receiving pension from the Government. Therefore, they are not entitled for any goat under any scheme. Due to which, a false complaint has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 10

¶25

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶26

been foisted against the appellant. The appellant never went to the house of the de-facto complainant and even according to the prosecution, the occurrence had

¶27

happened in the house of the appellant.

¶28

In support of his contention, the appellant examined D.W.1, who was the Vice-President under the same Panchayat of Udaya Natham Village, Udyarpalayam Taluk, Ariyalur District. He also categorically deposed that no such occurrence had happened only due to denial of the claim, a false complaint has been foisted against the appellant. He further submitted that the Trial Court found the other accused persons were not guilty, the appellant also entitled for same benefit. There is a contradiction between the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and other witnesses. Even then, the Trial Court, without considering those aspects, mechanically convicted the appellant.

¶29

Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the house of the appellant and claiming goats under free scheme. Immediately, the appellant and other two accused persons scolded in filthy language and also abused by their caste name in the public, while he also attacked them with wooden log. Immediately, they went to the hospital and P.W.8 treated them. P.W.8 also issued Accident Register and issued Wound Certificate. The Accident Register as well as the Wound Certificate were marked as Exs.P3 and P4. Admittedly, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 10

¶30

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶31

P.Ws.1 and 2 belong to Schedule Caste community and there is a community certificate marked as Ex.P2. P.Ws.1 and 2 categorically deposed that the appellant attacked them with wooden log and scolded them in filthy language by abusing their caste name. It is also corroborated by the other witnesses P.Ws. 4 to 7. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly found the appellant has guilty and convicted him.

¶32

Heard, Mr.P.Tamilavel, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.A.Gopinath, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶33

The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2015, P.Ws.1 and 2 along with P.Ws. 4 to 7 went to the house of the appellant and claimed goats under the free scheme. The appellant explained that P.Ws.1 and 2 were not entitled for any goat under free scheme, as they are possess goat and cattle. That apart, one of the family members is receiving pension. Even then, they repeatedly asked for goat and as such, the appellant immediately attacked them with wooden log and also threatened them with filthy language and also by using their caste name. It is relevant to extract the evidence of P.W.1, which is as follows :

¶34

ehDk;. vd; kidtpa[k; fhiy 9/00 kzpia nghy v';fs; Ch; Cuhl;rp kd;w jiyth;

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

Page 5 of 10

¶37

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶38

rpd;dJiu vd;gth; tPl;ow;F Mlfs; v';fSf;F bfhLg;gJ rk;ke;jkhf nfl;f brd;nwhk;/ mjw;F jiyth; v';fis ghh;j;J cdf;F vJf;Flh ML gw Fr;rpf;fhh; kfnd vd;W mrp';fkhd thh;j;ijahy; vd;id jpl;o vd;id ifahy; moj;jhh;/ vjphpfs; nrfh;. mg;g[. jiyth;. re;jpunkhfd; Mfpnahh; nrh;e;J vd;id ghh;jJ bgw;nwhy; Cw;wp bfhSj;J';flh vd;W Twpdhh;fs;/ mij vdJ ikj;JdUk; kidtpa[k; nfl;lnghJ jiyth; vd; kidtpia ghh;j;J mtis khdg';fg;gLj;J';flh vd;W brhy;yp vd; kidtpapd; $hf;bfl;oid gpoj;J fpHpj;J tpl;lhh;/ vd; kidtpia moj;J khdg';fg;gLj;jpajhy; vd; kidtp fPnH tpGe;Jtpl;lhh;/ ehDk; vd; kr;rhDk; nrh;e;J vd; kidtpia b$a';bfhz;lk; muR kUj;Jtkidf;F miHj;Jr; brd;nwhk;/ muR kUj;Jtkidapy; itj;J nghyPrhh; te;J tprhhpj;J vGjpf; bfhz;lhh;fs;/

¶39

Thus, it is clear that the appellant attacked P.W.1 and his wife with

¶40

wooden log. Therefore, P.Ws.1 and 2 sustained injuries. P.W.2 also corroborated the same and she also sustained injury. In fact, her blouse was torn due to the occurrence. P.Ws.4 to 7 also accompanied them while claiming goats from the appellant. P.Ws.5 to 7 are independent witnesses and they are not relatives to P.Ws.1 and 2. The relevant portion of the deposition of P.W.5 is

¶41

extracted hereunder.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

Page 6 of 10

¶44

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶45

ehd; mhpaY}h; khtl;lk; nfhlhyp fpuhkj;jpy; trpj;J tUfpnwd;/ ehd; Typ ntiy bra;fpnwd;/ m/rh/1. 2 kw;Wk; 4 Mfpnahh;fis bjhpa[k;/ mth;fs; v';fs; Ch;f;fhuh;fs;/ M$h; vjphpfisa[k; bjhpa[k;/ Kjy; vjphp g";rhaj;J jiytuhf cs;shh;/ ehd; ,e;J giwah; tFg;ig nrh;e;jth;/ M$h; vjphpfs; ,e;J td;dpah; tFg;ig nrh;e;jth;fs;/ Rkhh; ,uz;L Mz;LfSf;F Kd;g[ ,ytrkhf MLfs; jUtjhf brhd;dhh;s;/ ehfuh$; ML nfl;gjw;fhf Kjy; vjphp jiyth; tPl;ow;F nghdhh;/ ehd; gpd;dhy; brd;nwd;/ Ch;f;fhuh; gpd;dhy; te;jhh;fs;/ Kjy; vjphp jiyth;. ehfuhi$ ifahy; moj;J tpl;lhh;/ kw;w vjphpfs; K:tUk; fl;ilahy; ehfuhi$ moj;jhh;fs;/

¶46

It is also corroborated by P.Ws.6 and 7, the relevant portion of the deposition of P.W.6 is as follows :

¶47

eh';fs; ,e;J giwah; ,dj;ij nrh;e;jth;fs;/ M$h; vjphpfs; ,e;J td;dpah; ,dj;ij nrh;e;jth;fs;/ fle;j ,uz;L tU';fSf;F Kd;g[ ML nfl;gjw;fhf ehDk;. j';fJiu. MHFJiu. jkpH;thrfd;. ehfuh$d; Mfpnahh; jiyth; tPl;ow;F nghndhk;/ ehfuhi$ jiyth; g[w g[z;l kfnd cdf;F vd;dlh ML vd;W brhy;yp moj;jhh;/ kw;w ehd;F vjphpfSk; ehfuh$id moj;jhh;fs;/ mth;fs; bgw;nwhy;

¶48

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶49

Page 7 of 10

¶50

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶51

Cw;wp bfhSj;Jnthk; vd;W brhd;dt[ld; eh';fs; gae;J Xote;Jtpl;nlhk;/

¶52

Immediately, after the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the Primary

¶53

Health Centre, where P.W.8 was working as a Civil Surgeon. He treated them and recorded the Accident Register, which were marked as Exs.P3 and P4. He also deposed that P.W.1 sustained three injuries, however they were simple in nature. P.W.4 sustained two injuries and she was admitted to the hospital as in patient and she was discharged only on next day i.e., 13.01.2015. The deposition of P.W.8 also corroborated the deposition of other witnesses i.e., P.Ws.1,2, 4 to 7. Though the appellant examined D.W.1, it is no use to disprove the case of the prosecution. Hence, the prosecution clearly proved its case by convincing and cogent evidence. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and this Court finds no ground to interfere with the conviction of the appellant herein.

¶54

However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is an aged person and the sentence may be reduced.

¶55

Considering the above submission, this Court is inclined to reduce

¶56

the sentence alone. Accordingly, the conviction imposed on the appellant is

¶57

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶58

Page 8 of 10

¶59

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

¶60

hereby confirmed for the offence punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 of IPC and 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Case and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and the sentence imposed on the appellant is reduced from one year to six months. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed.

¶61

03.11.2022

¶62

Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order Lpp

¶63

¶64

Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur

¶65

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jayankondam Taluk, T.Palur Police Station

¶66

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madrs.

¶67

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,

¶68

Lpp

¶69

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 9 of 10

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

Crl.A.No.427 of 2018

03.11.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶75

Page 10 of 10

Chinndurai, Aged 49 Years, v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chinndurai, Aged 49 Years, v. the State Represented by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendiran, Age 24 Years, Vs the Station House Officer

Elangovan, Aged 46 Years Vs the State Rep by

K.Mariappan Vs Periyasamy (43 Years)

K.Sundarapandian, M/a 25 Years Vs the State Rep by Its

P.Ramalingam, M/A.50 Vs Y.S.Mathivanan (Died)

P.Ramalingam, Aged 50 Years Vs Y.S.Mathivanan