THE HONOURABLE MR v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 12.04.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.No.1129 of 2000Mayakrishnan .. Appellant/Accusedvs.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Arakkonam, Vellore District,(Thakkolam Police Sation Cr.No.76/199) .. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer: This Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated30.10.2000, made in S.C.No.103 of 2000 on the file of the learnedSessions Judge, Vellore.For Appellant : Mr.E.J.Ayyappan (Amicus Curiea)For Respondent : Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian Additional Public ProsecutorORDERThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.103of 2000 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Vellore.2. The short facts of the prosecution case relevant for thepurpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:-On 8.11.1999 at about 6.30 pm when the complainant was waiting forher mother, who is collecting firewood near Ponniamman Koil pondsituated at Mangattucheri village, the accused who does not belong toSC/ST community came there and under the pre-text of getting someanswers from the complainant suddenly caught hold of her hand andclosed her mouth and pulled her into a bush with an intention tooutrage her modesty and forcibly molested her and in the course of thesame transaction the accused bet the complainant on her hip with astick causing simple injury.3. The case was taken on file by the Sessions Judge and onappearance of the accused copies under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., werefurnished to him and the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 323 IPC were framedand when questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

4. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.10 were examinedand Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8 were exhibited and M.O.1 was marked. P.W.1 andP.W.4 are sisters. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1. 5. P.W.1 would depose that on 8.11.1999 at about 4.00 pm thecomplainant P.W.1 along with Sagunthala, Gowdhami and Sangeetha, wentto Ponniamman Koil pond for the purpose of collecting firewood. P.W.1belongs to Hindu Adidravidar community and was studying in 6thstandard. After collecting huge firewood, P.W.1 felt that it is verydifficult to lift the firewood and on seeing P.W.2 who was returningafter collecting firewood, P.W.1 requested her to inform her motherP.W.3 to go over to the spot where P.W.1 was waiting for the purpose oflifting the firewood. P.W.1 was waiting till 6.00 pm for the arrivalof P.W.3. At that time the accused came and enquired her as to whichplace she hails from and P.W.1 had replied that she belongs toMangattucheri Colony. The accused immediately caught hold of the handof P.W.1 and pulled her into a bush after closing her mouth with hishand. The accused has also molested her by pressing the breastforcibly. When P.W.1 requested to leave, the accused bet her withM.O.1. In the meantime P.W.3 rushed to the spot and on seeing P.W.3,the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. P.W.1 had narratedwhat had happened to P.W.3. In the mean time P.W.1's uncle also camethere. Since P.W.1 was complaining on pain over her breast and hip,she was taken to government hospital at Arakkonam by her mother fortreatment. While P.W.1 was getting treatment at the hospital around8.00 pm on the same day the Thakkolam police came their and recordedEx.P.1-statement from P.W.1.6. P.W.2-Gowdhami, who was studying 6th standard at the time ofoccurrence would corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 to the effect thaton the date of occurrence she also accompanied P.W.1 to Ponniamman Koilpond for the purpose of collecting firewood and while she was returningafter collecting firewood, she saw P.W.1 standing near the PonniammanKoil with her huge collection of firewood and asked her (P.W.2) toinform her mother to go there since she alone could not lift the hugecollection of firewood and accordingly she (P.W.2) had also informedthe mother of P.W.1 what she was asked to convey by P.W.1.Immediately, the mother of P.W.1 proceeded to Ponniamman Temple whereP.W.1 was standing. Later she came to know that the accused hadoutraged the modesty of P.W.1.7. P.W.3 is the mother of P.W.1. She would depose what P.W.1 hadnarrated in Ex.P.1-complaint as well as in her deposition before theCourt. But she would say that she saw the accused along with P.W.1near the said temple and on seeing her, the accused ran away. She wouldfurther depose that she tried to secure the accused, but he ran awayand P.W.1 was lying on the ground in a semi-conscious state and on herenquiry P.W.1 had revealed that the accused had outraged her modestyand she is having pain over her breast and hip and later she took P.W.1to the government hospital at Arakkonam for treatment and that her https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ daughter P.W.1 was admitted as an inpatient for about 25 days in thesaid government hospital.8. P.W.4-Sagunthala is the eldest sister of P.W.1. She alsoaccompanied P.W.1 on the date of occurrence to Ponniamman Temple pond for the purpose of collecting firewood and that P.W.1 had collectedhuge quantity of firewood and was waiting in the temple for her motherto lift the firewood. When her mother brought P.W.1 to the house shewas also informed that P.W.1 was outraged by the accused and that sinceP.W.1 was crying out of pain, she was taken to the government hospitalby her mother and uncle and that she also accompanied them.9. P.W.5-Chithirai would state that on 8.11.1999 at about 6.00 or6.30 pm while she was alone in her house, her brothers wife P.W.3 wasinformed by P.W.2-Gowdhami that P.W.1 is standing alone near the templepond waiting for her mother to lift the huge collection of firewood andimmediately P.W.3, the mother of P.W.1 left the house towards the placewhere P.W.1 is said to be waiting for her and that she also followedP.W.3 to the temple pond area where she saw the accused, on seeingP.W.3 ran away from the place of occurrence. She came to know fromP.W.1 that the accused had outraged her modesty. She and P.W.4 tookP.W.1 to government hospital at Arakkonam for treatment.10. P.W.9 is the head constable, who after receiving theinformation through telephone from the government hospital at Arakkonamat 8.30 pm proceeded to the government hospital at about 9.30 pm on thesame day and recorded a statement of P.W.1, who was admitted in thesaid hospital for treatment. Ex.P.1 is the complaint preferred byP.W.1. On the basis of the complaint, P.W.9 returned to the policestation and registered a case under Thakollam Police station Cr.No.76of 1999 under Section 354, 323 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of theSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Ex.P.7 is the FIR. He hadforwarded the copies of Ex.P.7 to the concerned officials including theJudicial Magistrate.11. P.W.10 is the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti CorruptionDepartment, Vellore, who had investigated this case. After knowingthat P.W.1 is admitted in Government Hospital at Arakkonam, heproceeded to the hospital and examined P.W.1 who was admitted in thesaid hospital as an inpatient and also P.W.3 & P.W.4 and one Devarajand recorded their statements and proceeded to the place of occurrenceand prepared Ex.P.2-observation mahazar in the presence of P.W.6 andrecovered M.O.1 & 2. from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.3-mahazar.He has also drawn Ex.P.8 rough sketch.12. P.W.8 is the Tahsildar of Arakkonam, who had issued Ex.P.5community certificate to the accused who belongs to Hindu Vanniyarcommunity. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

13. P.W.7 is the doctor, who had treated P.W.1 at the time whenshe was admitted in the government hospital at Arakkonam on 8.11.1999at about 8.00 pm. P.W.7 would say that while he was treating P.W.1,P.W.1 has informed him that a known person has outraged her modesty on8.11.1999 at about 6.30 pm. On examination, he could find i) acontusion measuring 5 inches x 3 inches on the left side of the hipii) a small contusion measuring 2 x 1 cm on the left breast. iii) acontusion over the neck measuring 2 inches x 1 inch. He has also madearrangements for P.W.1 being examined by a lady doctor. The lady doctorSaroja on examination of P.W.1, informed that there is no injuriesfound on the private part of P.W.1. Ex.P.4 is the wound certificateissued by him.14. After completing the investigation and after following theformalities, P.W.10 has filed the charge sheet against the accused on5.12.1999.15. After going through the oral and documentary evidence thelearned trial judge held that the guilt against the accused underSection 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and underSection 323 IPC have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt andaccordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo one year RIand slapped a fine of Rs.1000/- with default sentence and the periodfrom 9.11.1999 to 7.12.1999 of imprisonment the accused had alreadyundergone was awarded as punishment under Section 323 IPC and the setoff was ordered under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the findingsof the learned trial judge, the accused has preferred this appeal.16. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether theconviction and sentence against the accused under Section 3(1)(xi) ofSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 323 IPC isliable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum ofappeal?17.The Point:- Heard the learned Amicus Curiea Thiru.E.J.Ayyappanand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian andconsidered their submissions. The learned Amicus Curiea would submitthat he would confine himself to the sentence part only and he wouldcontend that the accused is a first offender and the accused is anyouth of 20 years of age and only due to the age factor the accused hadinadvertedly committed this offence and the same may be consideredleniently. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in thispoint, who has no serious objection for the modification of thesentence. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that theimprisonment awarded under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention ofAtrocities) Act can be modified to that of six months RI, the minimumsentence prescribed under the section, and in respect of fine the trialcourt findings will sustain. Point is answered accordingly. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. In fine, the appeal is dismissed with a modification in thesentence alone in the judgment in S.C.No.103 of 2000 on the file of thePrincipal Session Judge, Vellore. The accused is convicted andsentenced under Section 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act, to undergo six months RI instead of one year RI imposed by thetrial Court. In other respect, the findings of the trial Court willsustain. The trial Court is directed to secure the accused to undergothe unexpended portion of the sentence. Set off granted under section428 Cr.P.C.ssvSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore.2.The Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam.3.-do- thro The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vellore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madars.5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,Arakkonam, Vellore.SSV(CO)CGS[03.05.2007] Crl.A.No.1129 of 2000