Madras High Court
CRL A/68/2022 of UTHAYASURIYAN Vs THE STATE REP BY on 14 October 2026
CRL A No. 68 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
CRL A No. 68 of 2022
CNR: {HCMA010367522021}
Uthayasuriyan
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. The State rep. by.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Chinnasalem, Villupuram,
In Crime No.450/2018,
Chinnasalem Police Station.
2. Vasantha
..Respondent(s)
Prayer: The Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Crl.P.C., to set aside the Judgment and Conviction passed in Spl.SC.No.45 of 2019 dated 05.02.2021 on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Act Cases at Villupuram and allowing the appeal throughout by acquitting the Appellant.
For Appellant(s):
Mr. S. Shanmugavelayutham, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Nowfal For Respondent(s):
Ms. Sharada Vivek,
Additional Public Prosecutor,
Asst. by Mr.M.Arul Raj for R1
Ms.D.Latha (Legal Aid Counsel)
for R2
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 12:55:16 pm )
CRL A No. 68 of 2022
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
JUDGMENT
The appeal challenges the Judgment passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Act Cases at Villupuram holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 323 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and sentencing him as below; Offence under Section Sentence 3(1)(r) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (id) to undergo three months SI 3(1)(s)
of
SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 2 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (id) to undergo three months SI
r/w
3(2)(va)
of SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act,
To pay a fine of Rs.1000/- (id) to undergo three months SI The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant along with A2, had prior enmity with the victim PW2; that on the date of occurrence, on 01.07.2018, the appellant has asked the victim as to why he was sitting near a provision shop and attacked him on his back with his hand; that thereafter, the second accused attacked him with a wooden log; and this was witnessed by PW1 and PW3, the parents of the victim. The complaint was lodged by PW1, which was marked as Ext.P1.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 12:55:16 pm )
CRL A No. 68 of 2022
3. The trial Court acquitted the accused nos.3 and 4 and convicted the second accused for the offence under Section 323 r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST(POA) Amendment Act, 2015 and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- and convicted the appellant and sentenced him as stated above.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, would submit that the parties have since arrived at a compromise and that the victim did not intend to pursue the case any further.
5. The parties, namely the appellant and PW1 to PW3 are present in person and would confirm the compromise.
6. They have filed a memo of compromise, which is taken on record.
7. Though the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 is not compoundable, considering the nature of allegation, this Court in exercise of its inherent powers, permits compounding of the offence under the said Act, as no useful purpose would be served in convicting this appellant after this compromise.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 12:55:16 pm )
CRL A No. 68 of 2022
8. It is also stated that there is a counter complaint made by the appellant against the accused, which is pending trial in SC.No.84 of 2021 on the file of Principal Sessions Judge, Kallukurichi, for the major offences under Section 307 IPC.
9. The appellant undertakes that he would not pursue the said complaint against the accused, which is pending trial.
10. Considering the compromise arrived at between the parties, this Court is inclined to set aside the Judgment and acquit the appellant.
11. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed and the Judgment and Conviction passed in Spl.SC.No.45 of 2019 dated 05.02.2021 by the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Act Cases at Villupuram, is set aside.
12. The High Court Legal Services Committee shall pay the scheduled fees to Ms.D.Latha, the learned Legal Aid Counsel for the second respondent. 14-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No TSG
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 12:55:16 pm )
CRL A No. 68 of 2022
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chinnasalem, Villupuram, In Crime No.450/2018, Chinnasalem Police Station.
2. The Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Act Cases at Villupuram.
3. The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 12:55:16 pm )
CRL A No. 68 of 2022
SUNDER MOHAN, J. TSG CRL A No. 68 of 2022 14-10-2026
( Uploaded on: 26/10/2026 12:55:16 pm )