Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Crl.A.No.765 of 2017him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and convicting the appellant under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (POA) Act, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, set aside the same. For Appellant : Mr.A.Balamurugan For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.T.Elumalai for victim JUDGMENTThis Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide Judgment dated 14.11.2017 in S.C.No.244 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial for Cases registered under the SC/ST Act, Villupuram District. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 20172(a). It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and witness one Raja/P.W.1 were doing coolie work; that the appellant was in the habit of fighting with the witnesses in an inebriated condition; that the victim/P.W.2/Poomalai, questioned the said conduct; that the appellant therefore attacked one Shanmugam, who was not examined as a witness; that when the victim, Poomalai who belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community tried to intervene, the appellant abused him in filthy words and humiliated him; that in the course of the same transaction, the appellant had threatened both Poomalai/P.W.2 and Raja/P.W.1 and stated that if they antagonised the appellant, he would set fire to their houses; that thereafter on 05.12.2014, the appellant set fire to the houses of the witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.2 and one Priya/P.W.5. (b). On the complaint given by P.W.1, an FIR/Ex.P10 was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i), 436, 427 and 429 of the IPC and 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST Act by P.W.22/the Inspector of Police. The investigation was conducted by P.W.23/the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who filed the Final Report before the learned Judicial Magistrate 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017No.1, Tindivanam, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i), 436, 427 and 429 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(iv) of the SC and ST Act, 1989.(c). On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.244 of 2015 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered Under SC/ST Act, Villupuram District, for trial. The Trial Court framed five charges against the appellant for the offences under sections 323, 506(i) altered to 506(ii), 436 (3 counts), 427 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the ST/ST Act, 1989 and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.'(d). Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.23 and marked Exs.P1 to P.13 and M.O.1 to M.O.

3. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017(e). The trial Court acquitted the appellant of/for the offences under Sections 323, 436 (3 counts) and 427 of IPC and convicted him for the offences under Sections 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and 506 (ii) of the IPC and sentenced him as follows:Offence under SectionSentence imposed506(ii) of IPCTo undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months.3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for three monthsSentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3(a). Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court having rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under section 436 (3 counts) of IPC, ought to have seen that the allegation of criminal intimidation that he would set fire to the houses is an afterthought and ought to have disbelieved the witnesses and acquitted the appellant for the said offence. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017(b) The learned counsel further submitted that the facts as projected by the prosecution, even if accepted to be true, would suggest that there was no intention to humiliate the victim/P.W.2/Poomalai because he belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and it is only in the course of the fight that certain words were uttered. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Judgment of conviction, even in respect of the offences under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act has to be set aside. 4(a). Mr.L.Baskaran, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent, submitted that the prosecution had established that the appellant is guilty of the offence of criminal intimidation; that P.W.1 to P.W.4 had uniformly deposed about the intimidation; and that the complainant, namely P.W.1, also had mentioned about the threat in the complaint and therefore, it cannot be said to be an afterthought as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. (b) He further submitted that the appellant was aware of the fact that the victim, Poomalai, belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and the 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017evidence adduced would suggest that the appellant had abused P.W.1 only with an intention to humiliate him on account of his caste. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Mr.T.Elumalai, the learned counsel for the victim, reiterated the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and submitted that the victim was only humiliated because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting the appellant.

6. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined 23 witnesses. P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the victims. The houses of P.W.1 to P.W.3 were set on fire, according to the prosecution. P.W.5 and P.W.6 are related to P.W.1 to P.W.4 and had corroborated their version. P.W.7 to P.W.11 speak about the fact that there was a fire in the houses of P.W.1 to P.W.

3. P.W.12 is a witness who signed the Mahazar. P.W.13 is a witness to the Rough Sketch/Ex.P12. P.W.14 is a social worker who had written the complaint on behalf of the victim. P.W.15 is a Doctor who had treated the injured 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017witness, one Shanmugam, who was not examined by the prosecution. P.W.16 is an Electrical Engineer who was examined to rule out fire due to any electrical defect. P.W.17 is an Assistant Director working in the Forensic Department, Villupuram, who confirmed that there was a fire in the houses of P.W.1 to P.W.

3. P.W.18 is a Sub-Collector who had issued the Community Certificate for P.W.1 and P.W.2, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community/Ex.P7. P.W.19 is a neighbour and hearsay witness who corroborated the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.

4. P.W.20 is a Deputy Collector who had issued a Community Certificate for the appellant and certified that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste Community. P.W.21 had issued Community Certificate/Ex.P9 for the said Shanmugam, who had not been examined. P.W.22 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR and P.W.23 is the investigating officer/the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

7. The prosecution therefore relied on the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the other witnesses who had corroborated their version. The fact that the houses of P.W.1 to P.W.3 were set on fire has been established by 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017the prosecution by the examination of the Scientific Experts and by the examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the other witnesses who were near the house at the relevant point of time. The prosecution had also adduced evidence to rule out fire due to any other means. However, the prosecution had failed to establish as to who actually set fire to the houses. The trial Court therefore, acquitted the appellant for the offences under Sections 436 (3 counts) and 427 of IPC. Neither the prosecution nor the victim had challenged the Judgment of acquittal of the appellant for these two offences.

8. Similarly, the prosecution had not established the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, which is said to have been committed against one Shanmugam, as he was not examined during trial. That apart, the Doctor who had examined the said Shanmugam had not noted any external injuries on the said Shanmugam. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC.9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 20179. The question is whether the appellant has committed the offences under Sections 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and 506 (ii) of IPC. The charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act reads as follows.'',uz;lhtjhf ? Kjy; rk;gtj;jpd; bjhlh;rpahf vjphpahfpa ePh; rz;Kfj;ij moj;j nghJ ,Ush; Ihjpia nrh;e;j g{khiy ,ij nfl;l nghJ mjw;F ePh; mtiu Xj;jh njtpoah igah ehd; mg;gojhd; mog;ngd; vd;Wk; rhl;rp uhIhita[k; nghlh bghl;l njtpoah igah Xf;ftpl;l igah vd;W mrp';fkhf jpl;oajhf ck; kPJ ,/j/r/ gphpt[ 3(1)(x) v!;rp-v!;/o. rl;lg;go Fw;wr;rhl;L tidag;gl;Ls;sJ''10. From the above charge, it could be seen that the appellant had no grievance against the victim, Poomalai. In the fight between him and the said Shanmugam, the victim is said to have intervened and enraged by the said intervention, the appellant is said to have abused him in filthy language. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 that would suggest that the appellant had abused the victim only with an intention to insult or humiliate him on account of his caste. Unless the act of the appellant is done with an intention to insult or humiliate a member of the 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on account of his caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would not be made out. This position of law is well settled. This settled law was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. The relevant portion reads as follows:“18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” Section 3(1)(x) of the Act prior to amendment corresponds to Section 3(1)(r) after the amendment. Therefore, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Hence, this Court is of the view that the conviction for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, is liable to be set aside. 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 201711. As regards the offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC, it is seen from the evidence that the complaint itself was lodged against the appellant only based on suspicion. The prosecution was unable to establish that the appellant was responsible for setting fire to the houses of P.W.1 to P.W.

3. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegation of criminal intimidation is an afterthought. The fact that the four witnesses have deposed in the same manner would make no difference in the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence of the witnesses is parrot-like in nature.

12. That apart, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not established that there was any real threat so as to attract Section 506(ii) of IPC. In this regard, this Court relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Noble Mohandass Vs. State reported in 1988 SCC OnLine Mad 80. The relevant portion reads as follows:“7.....Further for being an offence under Section 506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually.”13. For all the above reasons, the Judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant in S.C.No.244 of 2015 dated 14.11.2017, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered Under SC/ST Act, Villupuram District, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. Bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged. 16.07.2025Index : yes/noNeutral citation : yes/noSpeaking/Non-speaking orderdk13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017Copy to: 1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered Under SC/ST Act, Villupuram District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. (Vellimedupet Police Station)3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017SUNDER MOHAN,J.dkCrl.A.No.765 of 201716.07.202515

Crl.A.No.765 of 2017him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and convicting the appellant under Section 3(1)(X) of SC/ST (POA) Act, sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, set aside the same. For Appellant : Mr.A.Balamurugan For Respondent : Mr.L.Baskaran Government Advocate (Crl.Side) Mr.T.Elumalai for victim JUDGMENTThis Appeal has been filed by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide Judgment dated 14.11.2017 in S.C.No.244 of 2015, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial for Cases registered under the SC/ST Act, Villupuram District. 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 20172(a). It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant and witness one Raja/P.W.1 were doing coolie work; that the appellant was in the habit of fighting with the witnesses in an inebriated condition; that the victim/P.W.2/Poomalai, questioned the said conduct; that the appellant therefore attacked one Shanmugam, who was not examined as a witness; that when the victim, Poomalai who belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community tried to intervene, the appellant abused him in filthy words and humiliated him; that in the course of the same transaction, the appellant had threatened both Poomalai/P.W.2 and Raja/P.W.1 and stated that if they antagonised the appellant, he would set fire to their houses; that thereafter on 05.12.2014, the appellant set fire to the houses of the witnesses, P.W.1, P.W.2 and one Priya/P.W.5. (b). On the complaint given by P.W.1, an FIR/Ex.P10 was registered for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i), 436, 427 and 429 of the IPC and 3(2)(iv) of the SC/ST Act by P.W.22/the Inspector of Police. The investigation was conducted by P.W.23/the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who filed the Final Report before the learned Judicial Magistrate 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017No.1, Tindivanam, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i), 436, 427 and 429 of IPC r/w Section 3(2)(iv) of the SC and ST Act, 1989.(c). On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions in S.C.No.244 of 2015 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered Under SC/ST Act, Villupuram District, for trial. The Trial Court framed five charges against the appellant for the offences under sections 323, 506(i) altered to 506(ii), 436 (3 counts), 427 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the ST/ST Act, 1989 and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.'(d). Before the trial Court, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.23 and marked Exs.P1 to P.13 and M.O.1 to M.O.

3. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant neither examined any witnesses nor marked any documents. 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017(e). The trial Court acquitted the appellant of/for the offences under Sections 323, 436 (3 counts) and 427 of IPC and convicted him for the offences under Sections 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and 506 (ii) of the IPC and sentenced him as follows:Offence under SectionSentence imposed506(ii) of IPCTo undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for three months.3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act To undergo RI for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo SI for three monthsSentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3(a). Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court having rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under section 436 (3 counts) of IPC, ought to have seen that the allegation of criminal intimidation that he would set fire to the houses is an afterthought and ought to have disbelieved the witnesses and acquitted the appellant for the said offence. 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017(b) The learned counsel further submitted that the facts as projected by the prosecution, even if accepted to be true, would suggest that there was no intention to humiliate the victim/P.W.2/Poomalai because he belonged to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and it is only in the course of the fight that certain words were uttered. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the Judgment of conviction, even in respect of the offences under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act has to be set aside. 4(a). Mr.L.Baskaran, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) for the respondent, submitted that the prosecution had established that the appellant is guilty of the offence of criminal intimidation; that P.W.1 to P.W.4 had uniformly deposed about the intimidation; and that the complainant, namely P.W.1, also had mentioned about the threat in the complaint and therefore, it cannot be said to be an afterthought as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. (b) He further submitted that the appellant was aware of the fact that the victim, Poomalai, belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and the 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017evidence adduced would suggest that the appellant had abused P.W.1 only with an intention to humiliate him on account of his caste. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the appeal.

5. Mr.T.Elumalai, the learned counsel for the victim, reiterated the submissions made by the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and submitted that the victim was only humiliated because he belonged to the Scheduled Caste community and therefore, the trial Court was right in convicting the appellant.

6. As stated earlier, the prosecution had examined 23 witnesses. P.W.1 to P.W.4 are the victims. The houses of P.W.1 to P.W.3 were set on fire, according to the prosecution. P.W.5 and P.W.6 are related to P.W.1 to P.W.4 and had corroborated their version. P.W.7 to P.W.11 speak about the fact that there was a fire in the houses of P.W.1 to P.W.

3. P.W.12 is a witness who signed the Mahazar. P.W.13 is a witness to the Rough Sketch/Ex.P12. P.W.14 is a social worker who had written the complaint on behalf of the victim. P.W.15 is a Doctor who had treated the injured 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017witness, one Shanmugam, who was not examined by the prosecution. P.W.16 is an Electrical Engineer who was examined to rule out fire due to any electrical defect. P.W.17 is an Assistant Director working in the Forensic Department, Villupuram, who confirmed that there was a fire in the houses of P.W.1 to P.W.

3. P.W.18 is a Sub-Collector who had issued the Community Certificate for P.W.1 and P.W.2, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste Community/Ex.P7. P.W.19 is a neighbour and hearsay witness who corroborated the witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.

4. P.W.20 is a Deputy Collector who had issued a Community Certificate for the appellant and certified that he did not belong to Scheduled Caste Community. P.W.21 had issued Community Certificate/Ex.P9 for the said Shanmugam, who had not been examined. P.W.22 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the FIR and P.W.23 is the investigating officer/the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

7. The prosecution therefore relied on the deposition of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the other witnesses who had corroborated their version. The fact that the houses of P.W.1 to P.W.3 were set on fire has been established by 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017the prosecution by the examination of the Scientific Experts and by the examination of P.W.1 to P.W.4 and the other witnesses who were near the house at the relevant point of time. The prosecution had also adduced evidence to rule out fire due to any other means. However, the prosecution had failed to establish as to who actually set fire to the houses. The trial Court therefore, acquitted the appellant for the offences under Sections 436 (3 counts) and 427 of IPC. Neither the prosecution nor the victim had challenged the Judgment of acquittal of the appellant for these two offences.

8. Similarly, the prosecution had not established the offence under Section 323 of the IPC, which is said to have been committed against one Shanmugam, as he was not examined during trial. That apart, the Doctor who had examined the said Shanmugam had not noted any external injuries on the said Shanmugam. Therefore, the trial Court rightly acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC.9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 20179. The question is whether the appellant has committed the offences under Sections 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act and 506 (ii) of IPC. The charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act reads as follows.'',uz;lhtjhf ? Kjy; rk;gtj;jpd; bjhlh;rpahf vjphpahfpa ePh; rz;Kfj;ij moj;j nghJ ,Ush; Ihjpia nrh;e;j g{khiy ,ij nfl;l nghJ mjw;F ePh; mtiu Xj;jh njtpoah igah ehd; mg;gojhd; mog;ngd; vd;Wk; rhl;rp uhIhita[k; nghlh bghl;l njtpoah igah Xf;ftpl;l igah vd;W mrp';fkhf jpl;oajhf ck; kPJ ,/j/r/ gphpt[ 3(1)(x) v!;rp-v!;/o. rl;lg;go Fw;wr;rhl;L tidag;gl;Ls;sJ''10. From the above charge, it could be seen that the appellant had no grievance against the victim, Poomalai. In the fight between him and the said Shanmugam, the victim is said to have intervened and enraged by the said intervention, the appellant is said to have abused him in filthy language. There is nothing in the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.4 that would suggest that the appellant had abused the victim only with an intention to insult or humiliate him on account of his caste. Unless the act of the appellant is done with an intention to insult or humiliate a member of the 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe on account of his caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would not be made out. This position of law is well settled. This settled law was reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. The relevant portion reads as follows:“18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” Section 3(1)(x) of the Act prior to amendment corresponds to Section 3(1)(r) after the amendment. Therefore, the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court would squarely apply to the facts of this case. Hence, this Court is of the view that the conviction for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, 1989, is liable to be set aside. 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 201711. As regards the offence under Section 506 (ii) of IPC, it is seen from the evidence that the complaint itself was lodged against the appellant only based on suspicion. The prosecution was unable to establish that the appellant was responsible for setting fire to the houses of P.W.1 to P.W.

3. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that the allegation of criminal intimidation is an afterthought. The fact that the four witnesses have deposed in the same manner would make no difference in the facts and circumstances of the case. The evidence of the witnesses is parrot-like in nature.

12. That apart, this Court is of the view that the prosecution has not established that there was any real threat so as to attract Section 506(ii) of IPC. In this regard, this Court relies upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Noble Mohandass Vs. State reported in 1988 SCC OnLine Mad 80. The relevant portion reads as follows:“7.....Further for being an offence under Section 506(2) which is rather an important offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not just 12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean what he says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel threatened actually.”13. For all the above reasons, the Judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

14. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant in S.C.No.244 of 2015 dated 14.11.2017, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered Under SC/ST Act, Villupuram District, are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant shall be refunded. Bail bond, if any, executed shall stand discharged. 16.07.2025Index : yes/noNeutral citation : yes/noSpeaking/Non-speaking orderdk13 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017Copy to: 1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases Registered Under SC/ST Act, Villupuram District.

2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Tindivanam, Villupuram District. (Vellimedupet Police Station)3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.A.No.765 of 2017SUNDER MOHAN,J.dkCrl.A.No.765 of 201716.07.202515