CRL A/274/2022 of AMBI ALIAS RAMACHANDRAN Vs STATE REP BY on 16 September 2026

JUDGMENT

Challenging the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.229 of 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Villupuram (Trial Court), this Criminal Appeal is filed.

2. Conviction and Sentence imposed against the appellants are as follows: Offence Sentence Section 147 of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Section 323 of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment. Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act Rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 18.11.2013 at about 7.30 p.m., the defacto complainant/victim was having tea along with PW2 Parinivel at Nisha Tea Shop, at that time, A2/Raja called the defacto complainant and questioned him as to why he obstructed the digging work being carried out by the Panchayat with the help of a JCB for laying pipeline. The defacto complainant informed A2 that there were about 400 houses in the colony who are deprived of proper drinking water and he questioned as to why a pipeline was being laid only for one house situated beyond the village while the residents of the colony were suffering without adequate drinking water. At that time, A2/Raja abused the defacto complainant in filthy language, referred to him by his caste name, threatened him and physically assaulted him. Further, there are about 40 persons present near a podium and along with A2/Raja, about 11 persons allegedly abused and assaulted the defacto complainant. PW2/Poosamani, who was accompanying the defacto complainant, took him to the Government Hospital, Ulundurpet. From the hospital, information was sent to the police, who had come there and recorded the statement of the defacto complainant. PW5/Doctor examined the defacto complainant and recorded the injuries in the Accident Register, which was marked as Ex.P3. PW6/Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No.490 of 2013. Thereafter, PW8 took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch, recorded statement of witnesses, collected medical records and community certificate of the witness and the accused. On completion of investigation, charge sheet filed. During trial, PW1 to PW8 examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P8 marked on the side of the prosecution. On the side of thedefence, no witness examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court convicted the appellants as stated above.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the prosecution case arose out of a dispute relating to the laying of a drinking water pipeline. On 17.11.2013, at about 6.00 p.m., the defacto complainant obstructed the work undertaken by the Panchayat. The Panchayat engaged a JCB for digging the pipeline and the defacto complainant stopped the work and threatened the JCB Operator. It was further submitted that the Village Panchayat Clerk reached the spot and informed the defacto complainant that the work was being carried out pursuant to the orders of the higher authorities and he could not obstruct the same. According to the learned counsel, on the following day, A2/Raja, husband of Panchayat President, called the defacto complainant and questioned him regarding his conduct. A heated exchange of words took place between them. The appellants and the other persons present at the spot merely warned the defacto complainant not to use provocative words and advised him to leave the place. It was further contended that the appellants have been falsely implicated merely because they belonged to the same village and happened to be present near the podium. Though the defacto complainant stated that about 40 persons were present, he had named only 11 persons and made a general allegation that all the said persons assaulted him. The learned counsel further submitted that PW2 and PW3 were projected as eyewitnesses to the occurrence. However, though they belonged to the same village and were allegedly present along with PW1, they had not specifically mentioned the name of the appellants. It was therefore contended that the evidence of PW1 was not corroborated by the evidence of PW2 and PW3.

5. The learned counsel further drew the attention of this Court to Ex.P3/Accident Register, wherein it was recorded that the defacto complainant was assaulted by about 10 persons with hands and legs and the place of occurrence was shown as Kunnathur Kulakarai Bus Stand. It is also recorded that there are no external injuries, the defacto complain had defective hearing since the incident and there was no further medical treatment in respect of the alleged hearing impairment. The other witnesses in this case are witness for observation mahazar, Doctor, RDO, Sub- Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police. The evidence of PW1 is in contradiction with the evidence of PW2 and PW3. Hence, prayed for setting aside the judgment.

6. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for first respondent filed her objections and submitted that the defacto complainant was assaulted by the accused persons on account of his having questioned the laying of the pipeline through the colony. There are about 400 families residing in the colony and they were already deprived of proper drinking water. A JCB was engaged by Panchayat Clerk Elumalai/A1 for laying pipeline across the colony. The defacto complainant questioned the said work since the residents of the colony were suffering for want of drinking water. A2/Raja, being the husband of the Panchayat President, along with the other accused, called the defacto complainant, abused him by referring to his caste and assaulted him. The injured defacto complainant was immediately taken to the hospital, where PW5/Doctor examined him, the eardrum of defacto complainant got damaged and hence issued a medical certificate of grievous injury. PW7 is the Tahsildar who collected the community certificate of the defacto complainant and accused in this case. PW6/Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered FIR. PW8 took up investigation, prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch in the presence of witnesses and recorded the statement of defacto complainant. PW2 and PW3 corroborated the evidence of PW1. Though detailed and elaborated cross-examination made, the evidence of prosecution remained unshaken. The Trial Court after carefully considering the oral and documentary evidence and the background of animosity between the parties, had rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the appellants. She further submitted that A1, A9, A10 and A11 acquitted from all charges, A3 died during trial and A2, A4, A5, A6, A7 and A8 were convicted. She would further submit that A2 and A7 preferred appeals before this Court in C.A.Nos.487 and 486 of 2019. This Court, by judgment dated 22.03.2021, dismissed the said appeals and confirmed the conviction of the Trial Court. Against which, A2 preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(Crl.).No.8422 of 2021, which also came to be dismissed, thereby confirming the conviction.

7. This Court after issuing notice to the defacto complainant found that none appeared on behalf of the second respondent and hence, appointed Mr.Mohamed Saifulla, learned counsel as Legal Aid Counsel, who took earnest steps, contacted defacto complainant/victim and he was present before this Court.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that the colony consists of 400 people, they have been denied of their drinking water. For collecting drinking water, the residents are required to climb down few steps, enter a pit and collect water from the said pit. Several complaints made seeking restoration of proper drinking water connection. The Panchayat President is a woman and her husband is arrayed as A2. In this background, on 17.11.2013, the defacto complainant noticed that a pit was being dug for laying water pipeline. He questioned the JCB operator and attempted to prevent the work from being carried out. A1/Panchayat Clerk informed him that the work was being carried out at the instance of A2. The defacto complainant warned the JCB operator and A1 not to proceed further with the work. On the next day, A2 along with the persons who were sitting in the podium, called the defacto complainant and questioned him regarding the pipeline work. A heated exchange of words ensued, during which the defacto complainant was assaulted and beaten. The assault was of such severity that the defacto complainant suffered loss of hearing. He was immediately taken to the hospital by PW2, where PW5 examined him and issued medical report. As a consequence of the assault, the defacto complainant suffered permanent loss of hearing. The learned counsel further submitted that the judgment of conviction rendered by the trial Court is well- founded and prayed that the appeal be dismissed.

9. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants are daily-wage labourers residing in the village and earning their livelihood by doing small-time work. He further submitted that at the time of occurrence, they were merely present near the podium where the Panchayat President's husband and others were sitting and conversing. Since the appellants happened to be present along with the Panchayat President and at the place of occurrence, their names had been falsely implicated in the case. It was also submitted that, on account of the present case, they had already undergone incarceration and had been facing the criminal proceedings for several years.

10. The appellants expressed remorse for their conduct and sought forgiveness from the defacto complainant, who readily accepted the same. It is also seen that there had been no previous incident or enmity between the parties. Even after the occurrence, the parties have been living peacefully and harmoniously. The incident appears to have occurred in the heat of the moment, and the parties have chosen to forgive and forget the same. At this stage, the appellants voluntarily came forward to compensate the defacto complainant for the pain and suffering undergone by the defacto complainant and the parties have also entered into a compromise.

11. The learned counsel submitted that since the defacto complainant agreed for the compromise and consented to the same, the appeal may be disposed of in terms of the compromise. He further referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramawatar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2022 (13) SCC 635 and submitted that the Apex Court even for the offence under SC/ST Act categorized certain of the situations if found, case can be quashed when the settlement is voluntary. It would be apposite to extract the relevant paragraphs:

“Firstly, the very purpose behind Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is to deter caste-based insults and intimidations when they are used with the intention of demeaning a victim on account of he/she belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the record manifests that there was an undeniable pre-existing civil dispute between the parties. The case of the appellant, from the very beginning, has been that the alleged abuses were uttered solely on account of frustration and anger over the pending dispute. Thus, the genesis of the deprecated incident was the aforestated civil/property dispute. Considering this aspect, we are of the opinion that it would not be incorrect to categorise the occurrence as one being overarchingly private in nature, having only subtle undertones of criminality, even though the provisions of a special statute have been attracted in the present case. Secondly, the offence in question, for which the appellant has been convicted, does not appear to exhibit his mental depravity. The aim of the SC/ST Act is to protect members of the downtrodden classes from atrocious acts of the upper strata of the society. It appears to us that although the appellant may not belong to the same caste as the complainant, he too belongs to the relatively weaker/backward section of the society and is certainly not in any better economic or social position when compared to the victim. Despite the rampant prevalence of segregation in Indian villages whereby members of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe community are forced to restrict their quarters only to certain areas, it is seen that in the present case, the appellant and the complainant lived in adjoining houses. Therefore, keeping in mind the socio-economic status of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the overriding objective of the SC/ST Act would not be overwhelmed if the present proceedings are quashed. Thirdly, the incident occurred way back in the year 1994. Nothing on record indicates that either before or after the purported compromise, any untoward incident had transpired between the parties. The State Counsel has also not brought to our attention any other occurrence that would lead us to believe that the appellant is either a repeat offender or is unremorseful about what transpired. Fourthly, the complainant has, on her own free will, without any compulsion, entered into a compromise and wishes to drop the present criminal proceedings against the accused.

Fifthly, given the nature of the offence, it is immaterial that the trial against the appellant had been concluded. Sixthly, the appellant and the complainant parties are residents of the same village and live in very close proximity to each other. We have no reason to doubt that the parties themselves have voluntarily settled their differences. Therefore, in order to avoid the revival of healed wounds, and to advance peace and harmony, it will be prudent to effectuate the present settlement.”

12. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court.

13. In the result, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed setting aside the judgment dated 11.07.2019 in Spl.S.C.No.229 of 2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Villupuram. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges levelled against them . Fine amount if any paid shall be refunded. Bail bond if any executed shall stand cancelled.

14. This Court appreciates Mr.Mohamed Saifulla, Legal Aid Counsel for the second respondent for his strenuous efforts in doing research and putting forth the case of the second respondent. The Legal Services Authority to pay the remuneration to the Legal Aid Counsel as per Rules. 16.09.2026 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Neutral Citation: Yes/No cse

To

1. The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST(POA) Act, Villupuram.

2. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ulundurpet Sub-Division, Ulundurpet, Villupuram District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J. cse Crl.A.No.274 of 2022 16.09.2026