GOVINDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl.A.Nos.447 and 448 of 2020 are filed against the orders dated 19.10.2020, made in Crl.M.P.Nos.352 and 350 of 2020, passed by the learned Special Judge for the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Dharmapuri, dismissing the bail petitions.

(2.) The gist of the case is that on 18.09.2020 at about 11.30 p.m., the 2nd respondent has lodged a complaint to the 1 st respondent that he is working as Mason and has two daughters and one son. His 2 nd daughter is studying 10th std in Avvaiyar Government High Secondary School, Dharmapuri. At about 07.00 p.m., after completion of work when he returned to home, his 2 nd daughter weeping. When he enquired, she informed that at about 06.00 p.m., when she was near the house, Vishnu, Devaraj, Govindan and Venkatesh of Kottaaimedu Village came in two wheeler, attempted to pinch her hip. At that time, one Manikandan was present, the accused fled away from the scene. Earlier to this occurrence, the accused constantly harassed and intimidated the victim girl. Thus, the accused committed sexual harassment against the minor daughter of the 2 nd respondent. Hence, an FIR in Crime No.2126 of 2020, for offence under Sections 12 r/w 11(1), 11(4) and 18 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012, was registered. During enquiry, it was found that the accused constantly followed the daughter of the respondent and was giving sexual harassment. The accused belong to Vanniyar Community and the victim girl belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. Knowing about her community status, the accused were indulging in such activities. Hence, the case was altered by including Sections 3(1)(w)(ii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 by alteration report dated 04.10.2020.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants in Crl.A.No.447 of 2020 were arrested on 19.09.2020 at about 10.00 a.m and the appellant in Crl.A.No.448 of 2020 was arrested on 11.10.2020. The learned counsel further submitted that the appellants are falsely implicated in this case, since the 2 nd respondent conducted street play on the service road without permission which was objected by the appellants. Hence, there was animosity between the appellants and the 2 nd respondent. Further, the appellants are not aware of the community of the 2 nd respondent and they did not utter any prohibitory words against him and the complaint is a motivated one. The learned counsel further submitted that later the 2 nd respondent and his daughter realised their mistake, appeared before the lower Court and submitted that they have no objection for release of the appellants in bail.