In the Court of Special Court for Exclusively trial of cases under SC/ST(POA) Act,

Sessions Judge, Dindigul District, Dindigul.

Present : Thiru.M. Ilangovan, B.Sc., B.L.,
Sessions Judge, Dindigul.
Monday the 28th day of December 2020
Special Sessions Case No.128/2019

Complainant State through

The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Oddanchatram Sub-Division,
(Cr. No.346/2019 of Oddanchatram P.S.)

Name of the accused 1. Saravanan @ Saravanakumar, 36/2019,

S/o. Sakthivel,
Nalupulikkottai,
Palakkanuthu Village,
Oddanchatram.
2. Senthilkumar, 32/2019,
S/o. Sakthivel,
Nalupulikkottai,
Palakkanuthu Village,
Oddanchatram.

Charges filed U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)
(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015
against the accused.

Charges framed U/s. 294(b), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA)

Amendment Act 2015, 324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 as against
A1, U/s. 324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015 as against A2.

Plea of the accused Not guilty

 .2.
Finding of the Court Found Not guilty

Sentence or order In the result it is concluded that the charges

framed against the accused U/s. 294(b), 3(1)
(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act
2015, 324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015 as against A1, U/s. 324,
324 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment
Act 2015 as against A2 were not proved by the
prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence
the accused are acquitted u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds, if any, shall stand canceled.

In this case no material object was recovered

and hence there is no specific order about this.

This Special Sessions Case was coming up for final hearing before me on
28.12.2020 in the presence of Thiru. C. Manickam, Special Public Prosecutor for the
State and of Thiru. N. Prabakaran, Advocate for the accused, upon hearing the
arguments of both sides, upon perusing the records and having stood over for
consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:

JUDGMENT

The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchatram Sub-Division has laid

the Final Report U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act 2015 against the accused alleging that on 03.08.2019 at
around 7.00 a.m., there was an argument between the defacto complainant’s brother
and the accused when the defacto complainant’s brother came through the A1’s Tea
shop. Upon hearing this the defacto complainant went there and asked the accused
why did he quarrel with his brother. A1 replied by abusing him by saying his caste
name as “ஏன்டா தேவிடியா பயலே சக்கிலிய நாயே அப்படித்தான் அடிப்பேன்” தே விடியா தேவிடியா பயலே சக்கிலிய நாயே அப்படித்தான் அடிப்பேன்” பயதே சக்கி ிய நா தேவிடியா பயலே சக்கிலிய நாயே அப்படித்தான் அடிப்பேன்”தேய அப்படி ் ா தேவிடியா பயலே சக்கிலிய நாயே அப்படித்தான் அடிப்பேன்”ன் அடிப்தேபன்”. Defacto
 .3.

complainant asked to A1 why he is scolding like this A1 keep on shouting that he

would scold him like this and A1 and A2 who is A1’s brother took the cement sheet
from near and alternately beaten the defacto head and body and caused simple injury
to him and that thereby all the accused had committed the offences U/s. 294(b), 324
IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 .

2. Hence, Final report was filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police,

Oddanchatram Sub Division against the accused before this Court, U/s. 294(b), 324
IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015. The
case was numbered as SPL.SC No. 128/2019 and the copies of documents
were supplied to them at free of cost u/s.207 Cr.p.c. vowing the accused
appeared before this court, after perusing the oral and documentary
evidences, upon hearing both sides came to the conclusion that there is a
prima facie case against the accused and charges were framed U/s. 294(b),
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015, 324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 as against A1, U/s. 324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va)
of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 as against A2 while the accused were
explained about the charges and interrogated all the accused pleaded not
guilty and false case was filed against them. On the side of the prosecution 2
witnesses were examined and 8 exhibits were marked. No witnesses were
examined and no documents were marked on the side of the accused.

3. The gist and essence of the witnesses examined on the side of the
prosecution revealled the following:

P.w.1 Magudeeswaran turned as hostile by saying that 2 years ago in the

crowd unkown person scolded him by using his caste name and beaten him. A1 and
A2 were not involved in this occurrence. The signature on the document which was
shown to him is his own and he did not know what was written in that complaint and
the signature alone is marked as Ex.p.1.
 .4.

P.w.2 Thiru. Asokan has adduced that at present he is working as Deputy

Superintendent of Police, Oddanchatram. Mr. Seemaichamy who worked before me
as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchatram is well known to him and his
signature also known to him. According to the documents instead of Mr.
Seemaichamy he is giving statement as follows: Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Oddanchatram, He has taken the case for investigation as per the Proceedings
received from Superintendent of Police dated:26.09.2016 which was registered in
Oddanchatram Police Station Crime No.346/2019 U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC r/w 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015. On the very same day
at 17.30hrs., he went to the place of occurrence and visited the place and prepared
Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch infront of the witnesses Selvaraj and
Ravichandran and examined the list of witnesses and recorded their statements and
he gave requisition to get the community certificate to the defacto complainant and the
accused to the Dindigul west Tasildar and got community certificate and recorded his
statement. And he got accident register for the injured person and enquired the Dr.
Sivaselvi from Oddanchatram Government Hospital, Oddanchatram who gave the
certificate and recorded her statement. He completed his enquiry and filed charge
sheet against the accused U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015. Complaint Statement of the Makudeeswaran
marked as Ex.p.2, FIR marked as Ex.p.3, SP Proceedings marked as Ex.p.4,
Observation Mahazar marked as Ex.p.5, Rough Sketch marked as Ex.p.6, The report
regarding the community of Accused and the complainant marked as Ex.p.7, Accident
Register of P.w.1 marked as Ex.p.8.

4. While the accused was interrogated by this court u/s. 313(b) of Cr.P.C about
the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecution witnesses the accused
pleaded that false case was filed against them and submitted that there was no
witness to be examined in this court on their behalf. The counsel for the accused
made an endorsement to that effect. The arguments of both sides were heard.
 .5.
5. Points for determination:
The only point that arouse in this case for determination is whether the
prosecution has clearly proved the charges framed U/s. 294(b), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of
SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015, 324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015 as against A1, U/s. 324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(POA) Amendment Act 2015 as against A2 beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Decision:

The case of the prosecution is as follows. On 03.08.2019 at around 7.00 a.m.,

there was an argument between the defacto complainant’s brother and the accused
when the defacto complainant’s brother came through the A1’s Tea shop. Upon
hearing this the defacto complainant went there and asked the accused why did he
quarrel with his brother. A1 replied by abusing him by saying his caste name as
“ஏன்டா தேவிடியா பயலே சக்கிலிய நாயே அப்படித்தான் அடிப்பேன்” தே விடியா தேவிடியா பயலே சக்கிலிய நாயே அப்படித்தான் அடிப்பேன்” பயதே சக்கி ிய நா தேவிடியா பயலே சக்கிலிய நாயே அப்படித்தான் அடிப்பேன்”தேய அப்படி ் ா தேவிடியா பயலே சக்கிலிய நாயே அப்படித்தான் அடிப்பேன்”ன் அடிப்தேபன்”. Defacto complainant
asked to A1 why he is scolding like this A1 keep on shouting that he would scold him
like this and A1 and A2 who is A1’s brother took the cement sheet from near and
alternately beaten the defacto head and body and caused simple injury to him and
that thereby all the accused had committed the offences U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC r/w
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015.

7. The learned counsel for the prosecution during the course of the argument
advanced that P.w.1 is the victim of the occurrence. In his evidence he has adduced
that 2 years ago in the crowd unkown person scolded him by using his caste name
and beaten him. A1 and A2 were not involved in this occurrence. The signature on
the document which was shown to him is his own and he did not know what was
written in that complaint and the signature alone is marked as Ex.p.1.

8. Though the P.w.1 has turned hostile. P.w.2 Thiru. Asokan has adduced that at
present he is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchatram. Mr.
Seemaichamy who worked before me as a Deputy Superintendent of Police,
 .6.
Oddanchatram is well known to him and his signature also known to him. According
to the documents instead of Mr. Seemaichamy he is giving statement as follows:
Deputy Superintendent of Police, Oddanchatram, He has taken the case for
investigation as per the Proceedings received from Superintendent of Police
dated:26.09.2016 which was registered in Oddanchatram Police Station Crime
No.346/2019 U/s. 294(b), 324 IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA)
Amendment Act 2015. On the very same day at 17.30hrs., he went to the place of
occurrence and visited the place and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough
Sketch in front of the witnesses Selvaraj and Ravichandran and examined the list of
witnesses and recorded their statements and he gave requisition to get the community
certificate to the defacto complainant and the accused to the Dindigul west Tasildar
and got community certificate and recorded his statement. And he got accident
register for the injured person and enquired the Dr. Sivaselvi from Oddanchatram
Government Hospital, Oddanchatram who gave the certificate and recorded her
statement. He completed his enquiry and filed charge sheet against the accused U/s.
294(b), 324 IPC r/w 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act
2015. Hence argued that the charges against the accused have been proved beyond
reasonable doubt and hence all the accused have to be convicted.

9. The learned counsel for the accused, during the course of the argument
submitted that P.w.1 is the complainant. He is the victim of this case. He has not
deposed as the accused persons committed the offences nor he adduced that there is
connection between the accused persons and the occurrence. Further no other
eyewitnesses were examined by this court. That eventhough, the occurrence has
taken place in the public place no public had deposed that the accused are related to
the occurence. Hence argued that the investigation was not properly conducted by
the Enquiry Officer and hence all the accused are to be acquitted.

10. Eventhough, P.w.2 the Deputy Superintendent of Police stated in his chief
examination about the connection between the accused and the occurrence the P.w.1
turned hostile and no other independent witnesses or eyewitnesses had deposed to
support the prosecution to show that the accused involved in this case. This court is
 .7.
of the firm view, that the prosecution has not clearly established the occurence of the
crime before the court, through witnesses. Further, the provisions of u/s. 294(b) and
324 IPC could be invoked only if the accused used abusive languages and attacked
the victim. The prosecution has not properly filed the case u/s. 3 294(b) and 324 IPC
before this court. The P.w.1 himself turned hostile in this case. All the accused are
aquitted since the prosecution has failed to prove the charges framed against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt.

In the result it is concluded that the charges framed against the

accused U/s. 294(b), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015,
324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 as against A1, U/
s. 324, 324 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015 as against A2
were not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and hence the
accused are acquitted u/s. 235(1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds, if any, shall stand
canceled.

In this case no material object was recovered and hence there is no specific
order about this.

Dictated to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by her,

corrected and pronounced by me in open court, this the 28 th day of December
2020.

Sd/- M. Ilangovan,
Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Exclusively trial
of cases under SC/ST (POA)Act,
Dindigul.

Prosecution side Witnesses:-

P.W.1 Makudeeswaran
P.W.2 Thiru. Asokan (Deputy Superintendent of Police)
 .8.

Prosecution side documents:-

Ex.P.1 03.12.2020 Signature of the P.w.1 in the complaint

Ex.P.2 23.12.2020 Complaint Statement of the P.w.1
Ex.P.3 23.12.2020 FIR
Ex.P.4 23.12.2020 SP Proceedings
Ex.P.5 23.12.2020 Observation Mahazar
Ex.P.6 23.12.2020 Rough Sketch
Ex.P.7 23.12.2020 Community Report of P.w.1, A1 and A2
Ex.P.8 23.12.2020 Accident Register of Makudeeswaran

Prosecution side material objects :-

Nil.

Accused side witnesses and documents :-

Nil.

Sd/- M. Ilangovan,
Sessions Judge,
Special Court for Exclusively trial
of cases under SC/ST (POA)Act,
Dindigul.