Court No- 5

Bench: H O N ’ B L E J U S T I C E A N I R U D D H A B O S E
HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY
KUMAR]
Item no -29
SLP(Crl) No. 000328 - / 2024
Case Title: E. PALANI vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Case details: The dispute between the petitioners and the respondents revolves around a criminal
matter.
Fact The gist of the allegations in the case of prosecution is that there is a land dispute between
the victims, namely P.Ws.1 to 4 and the accused herein. According to P.W.1, the Survey No.500B,
the Panchami poramboke in which P.W.1 and his family is entitled to cultivate. The accused party
who was granted patta in respect of Survey No.500A was measuring the land and was laying
Varappu actually in Survey No.500B with the help of Surveyor. P.W.1 has already prayed, for
issuance of patta or Enjoyment Certificate to him, with the Revenue authorities and before he
could obtain the same, the accused party was indulging in laying of Varappu with the help of
Surveyor and therefore, P.W.2, the wife of P.W.1 first went and attempted to physically stop them.
At that time, the occurrence had happened whereunder it is alleged that all the accused hit P.Ws.1,
2 and 3 and caused injuries to them and also called P.W.2 with the caste name in the said public
place. As far as the conviction of the accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 is concerned, the learned Counsel
would submit that firstly, the investigation was not carried on by the officer, who was appointed
by the State Government or Superintendent of Police. Originally, one officer was appointed by the
Superintendent of Police, who since retired and thereafter, when the present Investigating Officer
took over the investigation, no such order of appointment has been passed. Therefore, Rule 7 is
violated in this case and therefore, the appellants/accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 are entitled to acquittal.
He would further submit that in this case, the occurrence did not happen in any public view and no
other independent witness, who has witnessed about the calling of caste name, has been examined
and therefore, the other ingredient for the offence to be made out on the part of the appellants, to
intentionally humiliate the member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, is also not there.
Therefore, he would submit that the accused Nos.6, 7 and 8 are also not liable to be convicted .
Court Observed :(i) The conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Sessions Court at Villupuram,
dated 30.07.2019 in Special Sessions Case No.261 of 2015 in respect of the appellants/accused Nos.1 to 3
and 6, 7 and 8 in respect of the offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989) and the sentence is set aside;
(ii) The fine amounts paid by the appellants/accused is ordered to be refunded to them;
(iii) The finding of the guilt and the sentence imposed on the appellants in respect of the other offences
shall stand.
Held by Court The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as
expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year
from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

SUBMITED BY :ANKIT KUMAR