Bail Slip The Appellant/Accused (namely Chellammal) was directed to be released on bail in Crl.M.P.No.12828 of 2002 dated 17.2.2002 in crl. Appeal No.1781/2002 on the file of the High Court, Madras. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.01.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.MALA Crl.A.No.1781 of 2002 Chellammal .. Appellant Vs. STATE represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurantakam (Cr.No.945 of 1999), Kancheepuram District. .. Respondent Criminal Appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 26.11.2002 in S.C.No.200 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu. For appellant : Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran For respondent: Mr.I.Paul Noble Devakumar, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side) JUDGMENT The Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 26.11.2002 in S.C.No.200 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, whereby the appellant-accused was convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-,in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The respondent-Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurantakam, filed charge sheet against the appellant-accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The case of the prosecution is as follows: (a) P.W.1 was residing in Easwaran Koil (backside) Street in Kadapperi at Madurantakam, that the appellant-accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe, but belonging to Vanniyar Community and is living in the opposite house of P.W.1., that on 6.10.1999, while tapping water, the accused intentionally scolded P.W.1 by stating the community of P.W.1. P.W.1 gave a complaint to Madurantakam Police Station on the same day and the Police warned the accused and compromised the matter. (b) On 8.10.1999, at about 5.45 p.m., when P.W.1 was in her house, P.W.2 Rani who is also living in the same Street, came for tapping water near the house of P.W.1. The accused asked P.W.2 Rani as to why she is supporting P.W.1 and the accused uttered the words, @gwj; njtoaht ek;k eLj;bjUtpy; te;J Foj;jdk; elj;jtpl;lnj jg;g[@, during which time, P.W.2 Rani, P.W.3 Perumal and Kasthuri Ammal were present. P.W.2 Rani belongs to Naicker (Vanniyar) Community. Kasthuri Ammal belongs to Mudaliar Community. (c) P.W.1 gave Ex.P-1 complaint on 11.10.1999 at about 5 p.m. in P.C.R. Wing Police Station at Kancheepuram. P.W.6 Mani, Inspector of Police, P.C.R. Wing of Kancheepuram, received Ex.P-1 complaint from P.W.1 and registered a case in Cr.No.8 of 1999 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and prepared Ex.P-5 F.I.R. P.W.6 Inspector of Police sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate's Court and higher officials. (d) P.W.7 Veerappan, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Madurantakam Police Station, who received Ex.P-5 F.I.R. pertaining to PCR Wing of Kancheepuram, registered a case in Cr.No.945 of 1999 on the file of the Madurantakam Police Station for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and prepared Ex.P-6 F.I.R. and sent the same to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court and higher officials. (e) P.W.8 Balachandran, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurantakam, has taken Ex.P-6 for investigation and on 13.10.1999 at about 9.30 p.m., he inspected the place of occurrence and enquired P.W.1, her husband Sampath, P.W.2 Rani, P.W.3 Perumal, Kasthuri and others and recorded their statements. He also gave a requisition to P.W.4 Kannammal, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar, Madurantakam for Community Certificate of Sampath, the husband of P.W.1 and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused. He received Ex.P-2 Community Certificate of Sampath and Ex.P-3 Community Certificate of the accused Chellammal. P.W.5 M.Selvaraj, the then Tahsildar of Madurantakam, gave Ex.P-4 Community Certificate of P.W.1 Agila. (f) P.W.8, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurantakam, arrested the accused on 19.10.1999 at about 1.30 p.m. at Madurantakam Bus Stand and she was remanded to judicial custody. P.W.8 D.S.P. examined the witnesses, concluded the investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused. 4. The trial Court examined P.Ws.1 to 8 and marked Exs.P-1 to P- 6. The trial Court posed questioning on the appellant-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.c. about the incriminating materials, for which, she has stated that a false case has been foisted against her. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the appellant-accused is guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and convicted and sentenced her as stated above. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused. 5. Challenging the said conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant-accused would contend that initially, on 6.10.1999, there was a wordy quarrel between the appellant-accused and P.W.1 and at that time, the appellant was alleged to have scolded P.W.1 by stating the community of P.W.1 and it was pacified and the matter has ended in compromise. On 8.10.1999, the alleged occurrence has taken place at about 5.45 p.m. and the complaint has been given on 11.10.1999 and there was a delay of three days. So, the delay has not been properly explained by the prosecution. The complaint given was only an after-thought and the benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the appellant-accused. 6. The next limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-accused is that de-hors the evidence of P.W.1, from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 who belong to other community, it is seen that there was enmity between the accused and the witnesses--P.W.2 Rani and P.W.3 Perumal and so, their evidence, since they are neighbours of P.W.1, they have deposed against the accused and hence, it is unsafe to convict the accused on the basis of the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant-accused further contended that P.W.1 got married to one Sampath, who is belonging to Naidu Community and that the appellant-accused Chellammal was the servant maid in P.W.1's mother-in-law's house and since P.W.1 and her husband were driven out of the house on the instigation of the appellant- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accused, a false case has been foisted against the accused and hence, learned counsel prayed for acquittal of the accused. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that in Ex.P-1 complaint, not only the name of the accused, but also the name of her daughters, Gowri, Rukku, Anjali and son Ravi, have also been stated, but in her evidence she has stated only the name of Chellammal and there is contradiction between the oral evidence of P.W.1 and her Ex.P-1 complaint. There is no explanation offered by the prosecution. Hence, the benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the appellant-accused and he prayed for acquittal of the appellant-accused. 9. Per contra, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondent-Police took me through the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and stated that there is no reason for discarding the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and their evidence is natural, cogent, convincing, trustworthy and reliable and so, on the basis of their evidence only, the trial Court has convicted the accused as stated above. Hence, there is no infirmity or illegality in the judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused. 10. The first limb of argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant-accused is with regard to delay in preferring the complaint. Ex.P-1 is complaint which set the law in motion. In that, it was stated that on 6.10.1999, the appellant-accused has insulted and humiliated P.W.1 and her community and so, she has stated that she has preferred the complaint. No complaint has been filed before Court. But however, in her evidence, P.W.1 has stated that the matter ended in compromise. Ex.P-1 complaint has been given on 11.10.1999 at 5 p.m., stating that on 8.10.1999 at about 5.45 p.m., when she was in her house, P.W.2 Rani who was residing in the same Village, was tapping water and at that time, the accused uttered the words @gwj; njtoaht ek;k eLj;bjUtpy; te;J Foj;jdk; elj;jtpl;lnj jg;g[@, with an intention to insult and humiliate P.W.1. But admittedly, P.Ws.2 and 3 fairly conceded that there was enmity between the appellant-accused and themselves. P.W.2 in her evidence during cross examination stated that, @///// vdf;Fk; M$h; vjphpf;Fk; FHhao rz;il ele;jJ/ vdf;Fk;. vjphpf;Fk; ngr;Rthh;j;ij fpilahJ/ /////@ Even she has gone to the extent of saying in cross examination that she has deposed evidence only about the first incident, i.e. on 6.10.1999. In her cross examination, she has further stated that, @rk;gtk; nghJ epiwa ngh; ,Ue;jhh;fs;/ rk;gtk; xU kzp neuk; ele;jJ/ ,g;go FHhao rz;il 10 jlit ele;jJ/ rk;gtk; ele;j fpHik neuk; "hgfk; ,y;iy/ Kjy; Kiwahf ele;j rz;iliag; gw;wp jhd; ehd; rhl;rp brhy;fpnwd;/ /////@ 11. Learned counsel for the appellant would take me through the evidence of P.W.1. Admittedly, on 6.10.1999, there was one quarrel between P.W.1 and the appellant. P.W.2 has deposed only in respect of the incident that has taken place on 6.10.1999. So, the argument https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ advanced by learned counsel for the appellant is convincing and so, the evidence of P.W.2 is not trustworthy and not helpful to the case of the prosecution. 12. P.W.3 Perumal in his evidence during cross examination has stated that there was enmity between himself and the accused and there were not in talking terms. Since the children belonging to the accused family has attended the nature's call adjacent to the house of P.W.3, there was wordy quarrel, which led to enmity. Even he has gone to the extent of saying that he is a lorry driver and his working hours is between 6 am and 9 pm and in such circumstances, there is no evidence to show that at the time of occurrence, he was present. 13. Moreover, as per the evidence of P.W.2, so many persons were present at the time of occurrence and only the persons who are inimical towards the appellant alone have been examined before Court. So, P.Ws.2 and 3 are only interested witness and they were inimical towards P.W.1 because of her previous enmity, and so their evidence is not trustworthy and hence, it is unreliable. 14. P.W.1 is the person who set the law in motion. She has stated that on 6.10.1999, there was some incident, but subsequently, it was compromised at the Police Station and on 8.10.1999 at 5.45 p.m., the alleged occurrence was alleged to have taken place. Admittedly, the complaint has been given on 11.10.1999 at 5 p.m. before the PCR Wing at Kancheepuram. She has not assigned any reason as to why she has not given complaint immediately. She has stated on 6.10.1999 morning, some kind of occurrence took place and immediately complaint has been given before Madurantakam Police Station and the Police people compromised the same. In such circumstances, P.W.1 has not assigned any reason as to why she has not given complaint on the same day, regarding the occurrence that took place on 8.10.1999, since she has experience to give complaint before the Police Station. But in her evidence, she has fairly conceded that she has given complaint only on 11.10.1999 at 5 p.m. and endorsement has also been made on the complaint by the concerned Police. There is a delay and she has not explained the delay. The trial Court in paragraph 12 of its judgment, has stated that the delay has not very much materially affected the case of the prosecution. 15. Learned counsel for the appellant culled out some portion of the oral evidence of P.W.1, stating that since the accused was a servant maid at P.W.1's mother-in-law's house, because of the instigation of the appellant-accused, P.W.1 and her husband were driven out of their family and now, P.W.1 is residing separately with her husband and so, with the enmity only, she gave a false complaint after consultation with others, and there is a delay. Considering the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cross examination of P.W.1, even though she has denied the suggestion posed by the defence counsel, but admittedly, now she is residing separately along with her husband. In such circumstances, I find some force in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that due to enmity only, a false complaint has been given on 11.10.1999 at 5 p.m. stating that the alleged occurrence took place on 8.10.1999 at about 5.45 p.m. 16. Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads as follows: "Section 3: Punishment for offences of atrocities.--(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,-- .... .... (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; ..... ..... shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine." 17. Since the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 are not trustworthy and unreliable, even though it was proved that P.W.1 belongs to SC/ST Community, and the accused belongs to Hindu Vanniyar Community as per the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 and Exs.P-2 to P-4 Community Certificates, but the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have not been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. 18. The trial Court committed error and came to the conclusion that the appellant-accused has intentionally insulted, humiliated and intimidated P.W.1 with an intention to humiliate a member of SC/ST community in the place within public view, which has not been proved by the prosecution and hence, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is not sustainable. The benefit of doubt is given in favour of the appellant-accused. 19. In fine, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. (a) The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused are set aside. She is acquitted of the charge. (b) The fine amount, if paid by the appellant shall be refunded. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (c) The bail bonds, if any executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled. cs Sd/- Asst.Registrar /True Copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar To 1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalputtu. 2. The Judicial Magistrate, Madurantakam 3. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chengalpattu 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Madurantakam (Cr.No.945 of 1999), Kancheepuram District. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 cc to Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran, Advocate Sr 3685 Crl.A.No.1781 of 2002 TRM (CO) EU (5.2.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/