CRL A/1124/2026 of P.Rajamanickam Vs The Deputy Superintendent of Police on 24 September 2026

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal has been filed to set aside the order passed in Crl.MP.No.243 of 2025 in Spl.SC.No.12 of 2025 dated 05.05.2026 by the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Salem.

2. The petitioner/A2 who is facing trial in Spl.SC.No.12 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Salem, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(1) of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)

(s) , 3(2)(va) of SC and ST (PoA). Act, had filed a discharge petition before the trial Court in Cr.M.P.No.243/2025 and the trial Court by an order dated 05.05.2026, dismissed the same. Against which, the present appeal has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant/A2 submitted that there are two incidents involved in this case. The first incident is projected as though on 13.08.2023, the defacto complainant’s friend had arranged a Mutton feast at Pudhupatti Mariamman Temple and hence, at about 5.30 p.m., the defacto complainant along with his friends who are all belong to Hindu Adi Dravidar Community had participated in the feast. At that time, the appellant's brother/A1

questioned them, kicked the chairs and chased them away. The second incident is projected as if, on the same day at about 7.00 p.m. when the defacto complainant along with his friends Arivalagan, Ramamoorthy and Viji, was standing near Belur Junction Road, A1 and A2/the appellant herein approached them and by stating that they are the Dharmakarth of the temple, questioned as to how could they keep mutton feast without their permission and scolded them with abusive words and also assaulted them using hands. Further, both the accused threatened the defacto complainant and his friends to kill them. Hence, based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the FIR came to be registered.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that admittedly in the first incident, the appellant/A2 was not present during which time, the alleged abusive language was made. As regards the appellant/A2, he is stated to have been present only during the second incident took place at Belur Junction Road, which is a public place within public view and nowhere in the complaint or in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the witnesses have stated that any prohibitory or caste based abusive names were used. Hence, no offence under the SC/ST is made out. Further, there had been motive and animosity between the appellant's brother and the defacto complainant (LW-1). The defacto complainant who is an Officer Bearer of a political party, has lodged a false complaint by using their political party and social status as a shield. The trial Court, without going into the merits of the case, dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioner merely on the grounds that these points could only be decided during the trial.

5. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarkhand reported in AIR 2020 Supreme Court 5584, wherein, in Paragraph 18, it has been observed that an offence under the SC/ST 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.

6. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramkrishna Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. (in SLP (Criminal) No.5113 of 2023), and submitted that the Apex Court has reiterated that to proceed against a person under the SC/ST Act, the essential ingredient that the alleged caste based insult or intimidation occurred at a place within public view must be substantiated by witness statements and supporting material, whereas in the present case, no such material is available on record.

7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the appellant/A2 and his brother/A1 are facing trial in Spl.SC.No.12 of 2025 on the file of the Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Salem, for the offences under the IPC as well as SC/ST Act. She further submitted that on 05.08.2025, the date on which the bail application of the accused was dismissal, charges were framed and the matter is posted for the examination of witnesses.

8. In response, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that when the trial Court subsequently proceeded to issue summons to the witnesses, the appellant filed a memo informing the Court about the pendency of the present appeal before this Court. Consequently, the trial Court deferred the proceedings and for that reason, the trial remains pending.

9. With regard to the merits of the case, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto complainant/R3 belongs to a Scheduled Caste Community. On 13.08.2025 at about 5.30 p.m., the defacto complainant along with his friends (L.W.2 to L.W.4) was having a feast near Mariamman Temple. At that time, Selva @ Selvam who is the brother of the appellant herein, arrived at that spot, humiliated the defacto complainant and others, kicked the chairs and thereby preventing them from eating. Following this incident, at about 7.00 p.m., when the defacto complainant and his friends were standing near Belur Junction Road, the appellant/A2 along with his brother/A1 approached them and assaulted them with their hands by stating that they are the Dharmakartha of the temple and questioned as to how could they keep mutton feast without their permission. In the said incident, L.W.1 and L.W.2 sustained injuries and underwent medical treatment at the hospital, following which, the defacto complainant lodged a complaint. L.W.15/Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered the FIR. Thereafter, upon finding that the offences under the SC/ST Act were attracted, he handed over the investigation to L.W.16/the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who in turn visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of L.W.7 to L.W.10 and recorded the statements of the witnesses. L.W.1 to L.W.4 were together at the time occurrence, L.W.5 and L.W.6 are private witnesses who witnessed the incident. The caste-cum- community certificate of the victims and the accused were collected from L.W.11 to L.W.13. L.W.14/Doctor treated the injured L.W.1 and L.W.2 and upon collecting the medical records, the charge sheet was filed. The trial Court, finding prima facie material, took the charge sheet on file and issued summons. The appellant appeared and thereafter filed a discharge petition. The trial Court found that there were sufficient materials to proceed and hence, rightly dismissed the discharge petition. Furthermore, it is a settled position that the trial Court at this stage, is only required to stick with the evidence to a limited extent to ascertain whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed with the trial and not to determine whether the evidence would ultimately lead to a conviction. The points raised by the appellant herein are only matters of defense involving factual aspects that must necessarily be decided during the trial. She further submitted that the appellant's brother/A1 had also lodged a complaint regarding the same incident as a counter case with different version as if, he and his brother were assaulted. In that counter case, the appellant is a witness. The investigation in that case has been completed, charge sheet has been filed and the case is pending trial in S.C.No.1/2026. Since these are case and counter case, the appellant has effectively admitted the occurrence and his only defence is that, they were attacked by the defacto complainant, which is matter of fact that can only be decided during the trial. Hence, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor prayed for the dismissal of the present appeal.

10. The learned counsel for the defacto complainant/3rd respondent submitted that the defacto complainant and his friends were humiliated by both A1 and A2. In the first incident, while the defacto complainant and his friends were having food in a temple, which is a public place where people had gathered, the appellant's brother/A1 arrived at the spot, scolded them using abusive words, kicked the chairs, disturbed the feast and chased them away. In the second incident, when the defacto complainant and his friends were standing near Belur Junction Road, the appellant/A2, along with his brother/A1 approached them and by claiming that they are the Dharmakartha of the temple, questioned them as to how could they conduct a feast without their permission and subsequently assaulted them and also threatened them. During this attack, the defacto complainant and his friend Arivalagan sustained injuries and underwent treatment at the Government Hospital, Vaazhapadi. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged with the Sub Inspector of Police at the Vaazhapadi Police Station. Subsequently, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the investigation and recorded the statements of the witnesses. The learned counsel contended that there are prima facie materials available to proceed against both the appellant and his brother and on these grounds, strongly opposed the present

appeal.

11. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

12. The presence of the appellant at the scene of occurrence is not in dispute. Only the conflicting versions of allegations advanced by the appellant and the defacto complainant/R3 are to be decided. These contentions and rival contentions are entirely factual in nature that can only be decided during trial. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order of the trial Court.

13. As regards the judgment in Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarkhand, relied upon by the appellant, the charge therein pertained to an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. In that decision, the Apex Court has held that an intention to humiliate a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste must be established and an offence is not made out merely for the reason that the insulted person happens to belong to a Scheduled Caste.

14. In the present case, the defacto complainant and his friends belong to a Scheduled Caste community. Further, the defacto complainant is a member of a political party aligned with a Scheduled Caste ideology. Hence, his caste identity is well known. On the date of the occurrence, while the defacto complainant and his friends were having food in a temple, they were chased away from that place. The sequence of events confirms that they were targeted solely for the reason that they belong to a Scheduled Caste community.

15. As far as the second judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant in Ramkrishna Chauhan Vs. State of U.P. is concerned, it pertains to an act that must take place in a public place within public view.

16. As far as the appellant in the present case is concerned, the incident constitutes a continuous act, which followed at about 7.00 p.m. when the appellant along with his brother arrived at the spot. Claiming to be the Dharmakartha of the temple, they questioned the complainant’s group as to how could they conduct a feast without their permission and also assaulted and threatened them.

17. Admittedly, the first incident took place at a temple and second the incident took place at Belur Junction Road, both of which are public places within public view. Therefore, the citations relied upon to by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

18. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

19. It is made clear that the narration of the facts and observations made herein are only for the limited purpose of deciding this appeal. The trial Court shall proceed with the case in accordance with law and on its own merits. 24-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No KSA-2

To

1. The Special Court for Trial of Cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Salem.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police Vazhapadi Sub Division, Salem District.

3. The Inspector Of Police Vazhapadi Police Station, Salem.

4. The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. KSA-2 CRL A No. 1124 of 2026 24-09-2026