Devaraj v. The State rep. byThe Deputy Superintendent of Police

BAIL SLIP---------The Accused/Appellant Devaraj, was directed to be released on bail asper order of this Court dated 19.10.2001 and made in CR.MP. No. 7472 of2001 in Crl.Appeal.No. 1002 of 2001 on the file of the Court in SessionsCase No 371 of 2000.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATE : 02.08.2007CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYANCrl.A.No.1002 of 2001Devaraj .. Appellant/AccusedVs.The State rep. byThe Deputy Superintendent of Police,Tiruppur Rural Police Station,Tiruppur.(Cr.No.595/1997) .. Respondent/ComplainantPrayer:- This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated05.10.2001 made in S.C.No.371 of 2000 on the file of the PrincipalSessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Coimbatore.For Appellant:Mr.M.Shankar for Mr.P.Venkatesubramaniam For Respondent :Mr.V.R.Balasubramaiam Additional Public ProsecutorJUDGMENTThis appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C.No.371 of2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge,Coimbatore. The accused faces charges under Section 3(1)(x) & 3(1)(xi) ofthe SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under Section 323IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The learned Sessions Judge, on appearance of the accused onsummons, had furnished copies to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.,and thereafter framed charges under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of theSC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and when questioned the accusedpleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution P.W.1 to P.W.10 wereexamined Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7 were exhibited. P.W.1 is the victim girl.According to her, she belongs to 'Mathari' caste, a schedule caste. Theaccused is running a tea shop in her village and when she was crossing thesaid tea shop of the accused on the date of occurrence along with hermother the accused came out of his tea shop and demanded the balance ofRs.7/-. She requested time till Sunday to wipe of the balance of Rs.7being the due in the transaction, but the accused abused her by her caste'rf;fypf; fz;lhnuhHp' and also slapped her and hold her tuft gave blows onher back andalso assaulted her 5 or 6 times with his cheppal and draggedher on the ground and that one Shanmugam & Murugan interfered and pacifiedhim. She had complained about the incident to her husband, who returnedfrom his work spot at about 7.00 pm on the same day to took her to thepolice station where she preferred Ex.P.1-complaint and with a police memoshe was referred to government hospital for treatment, where she wastaking treatment as an inpatient for one week.3.P.W.2 & P.W.3 have turned hostile.4.P.W.4 is the mother of P.W.1. She has corroborated the evidenceof P.W.1 to the effect that at the time of occurrence the accused hadabused P.W.1 by caste (rf;fypf; fz;lhnuhHp) and also assaulted her withhands.5.P.W.5 is the witness in Ex.P.1-complaint, who is none other thanthe husband of P.W.1.6.P.W.6 is the then head quarters Deputy Tahsildar of Tirupur, Whohad issued Ex.P.3, community certificate to P.W.1 certifying that shebelongs to 'mathari' caste. He has also issued Ex.P.2-communitycertificate to the accused stating that he belongs to Hindu 'Uppara'community, a backward class.7.P.W.9 is the then Sub-Inspector of Tirupur Rural Police Station. Onthe basis of Ex.P.1-complaint P.W.9 has registered the case under TirupurRural Police Station Cr.No.595 of 1997 under Section 323 & 354 IPC andunder Section 3(1)(x) & 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)Act. Ex.P.5 is the FIR.8.P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer, who had visited the place ofoccurrence on 2.10.1997 and prepared Ex.P.6-observation mahazar and alsohad drawn a rough sketch Ex.P.7. He has arrested the accused on 3.10.1997at about 11.30 hours. He has examined the witnesses and recorded theirstatement. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.P.W.7 is the doctor, who had examined P.W.1 on 26.9.2007 and issuedEx.P.4 copy of the accident register. According to the doctor, P.W.1 hadsustained i) an abrasion on the right palm measuring ½ x ½ cms, ii) asmall abrasion on the left forearm iii) a contusion measruing 5 x 5 cm onthe left thigh. The doctor has opined that the above said injuries aresimple in nature. 10.P.W.8 would depose that on 26.9.1997 at about 3.00 am P.W.1 cameto the police station along with her husband P.W.5 and preferred Ex.P.1-complaint and after registering the FIR, he had sent the victim to thegovernment hospital Tirupur for treatment. After completing theformalities P.W.10 has filed the charge sheet against the accused on21.1.1998.11.When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused underSection 313 of Cr.P.C., he would deny his complicity with the crime. Hehas not let in any evidence by way of defence. The learned trial Judgeafter giving due consideration to the oral and documentary evidence let inby the prosecution, has come to the conclusion that the charges levelledagainst the accused have been proved against the accused beyond anyreasonable doubt and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 3(1)(x) & 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and accordinglyconvicted and sentenced the accused to undergo 6 months RI and a fine ofRs.250/- under each of the above provisions of law and also convicted theaccused under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.250/-with default sentence, which necessitated the accused to prefer thisappeal.12. Heard Mr.M.Shankar learned counsel for the appellant andMr.V.R.Balasubramaiam learned Additional Public Prosecutor and consideredtheir submissions.13.Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether thefindings of the learned trial Judge in S.C.No.371 of 2000 on the file ofthe Principal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Coimbatore, is liable tothe set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal?14.The Point:- 14(a) The learned counsel appearing for the appellantMr.M.Shankar would focus the attention of this court to the discrepanciesfound in the complaint Ex.P.1 and the evidence of P.W.1. In Ex.P.1-complaint the complainant P.W.1 would state that at the time of occurrencethe accused had abused her by caste (rf;fypf; fz;lhnuhH) and slapped herand also kicked her on the chest and dragged her on the ground holding hertuft. But before the Court as P.W.1 she has stated that the accused atthe time of occurrence had abused her by caste and also slapped her andassaulted her 5 or 6 times with cheppal and kicked her 5 or 6 time. Thispart of the evidence was corroborated by P.W.4, mother of P.W.1. P.W.7,the doctor, who examined P.W.1 on 26.9.1997, had issued Ex.P.4, copy of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the accident register. The third injury found in Ex.P.4 is a contusion onthe left thigh measuring 5 x 5 cms. Neither in Ex.P.1-complaint nor inher deposition P.W.1 has stated that at the time of occurrence the accusedhad assaulted her on her left thigh. It is the case of P.W.1 that at timeof occurrence the accused slapped her and also gave blows on her back andkicked on the chest. But the doctor has not noted any injury on P.W.1neither on the chest nor on the cheek. It is further pointed out by thelearned counsel for the appellant Mr.M.Shankar that time has not beenstated in Ex.P.4 to show that when P.W.1 was examined by P.w.7, thedoctor, on 26.9.1997 and the crime number noted in Ex.P.4 is in differentink. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the conviction andsentence of the trial Court under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 323 IPC cannot besustained. 14(b) When we come to the remaining charge against the accusedunder Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, inEx.P.1-complaint itself the complainant has mentioned that at time of theoccurrence the accused had abused her by caste (rf;fypf; fz;lhnuhH) andbefore the Court as P.W.1, the victim has deposed that at the time ofoccurrence the accused had abused her by caste. P.W.4 is an eye witnessto the occurrence. P.W.4 the mother of P.W.1 also corroborated theevidence of P.W.1 to the effect that at the time of occurrence the accusedhad abused her by her caste. P.W.6 is the Head Quarter Deputy Tahsildarof Tirupur, who had issued Ex.P.3 community certificate to P.W.1 statingthat she belongs to Hindu Mathari comminuty, a shedule caste, and that theaccused Devaraj belongs to backward clause, Hindu Uppara. Ex.P.2 is thecommunity certificate relating to the accused. Under such circumstances,as rightly held by the learned trial Judge an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been attractedagainst the accused. I do not find any reason to interfere with thefindings of the learned trial Judge as to the finding that the accused isguilty under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act. Point is answeredaccordingly.In fine, the appeal is partly allowed and the conviction andsentence of the trial court in S.C.No.371 of 2000 on the file of thePrincipal Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Coimbatore, under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 323 IPCare hereby set aside and the conviction and sentence of the trial Courtunder Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, isconfirmed. The accused is entitled to the fine of Rs.250/- each paid underSection 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act anunderSection 323 IPC. The fine imposed under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Prevention of Atrocities) Act will sustain. The trial judge is directedto secure the accused and send to prison to undergo unexpended portion ofthe sentence.SsvSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo,1.The Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur.2.-do-Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore District.3.The Principal Sessions Judge -cum- Special Judge, Coimbatore.4.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High, Madras.5.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tiruppur Rural Police Station, Tiruppur.ASM (co)sg 9/8/07Crl.A.No.1002 of 2001