BOOLOGHA PANDIAN Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused 1 and 2 are the appellants. They were charged for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial Court convicted and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months.

(2.) The facts of the case against the accused may be narrated briefly as follows:- On 26.10.1992 at about 5.00 P.M., the accused had with the intention to denigrate, insult, intimidate and humiliate P.W.1, Manthiram abused him by using the words "gwf;Tjpg[[s;s" and caused aspersion in the public place calling his caste and thereby committed an offence under the said provision of law. Hence, the respondent filed the final report against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate No.III, Tirunelveli. P.W.1, Manthiram belonged to Hindu Paraiyar community and the accused hail from Thevar community. P.W.1 cultivated the land of P.W.4, Subramaniam and shared the crop and also worked as a labourer under him. Similarly, one Velu Konar was also cultivating the land of P.W.4 on the same terms. At or about the time of occurrence, Velu Konar raised groundnut crop therein. At the instance of P.W.4, Subramanian, P.W.1 demanded Velu Konar to deliver the share in the crop harvested at that time towards lease due to P.W.4, but Velu Konar refused to comply with such demand. Hence, on 30.8.1992 when P.W.4 came to the village, P.W.1, Manthiram informed him about the said refusal to deliver the share in the crop and thereupon, P.W.4 had thrown a challenge to collect the share from Velu Konar. While so, on the date of occurrence at about 9.30 P.M., the second accused, Kandiah Pandian and two others prevented P.W.1, Manthiram from irrigating the land and assaulted him with stick and hence, P.W.1 lodged a complaint on the next day before the Thisaiyan Vilai Police Station. P.W.6, Sub Inspector of Police of the said station registered a case in Crime No.444/1992 under Sections 323, 341, 506(ii) I.P.C. against the second accused and two others (vide) Ex.P-4. On 26.10.1992 at about 5.00 P.M., when P.W.1 and P.W.2 Velandi Konar were conversing with one Raman at the place of occurrence, the first accused restrained P.W.1 from proceeding and insulted him and denigrated his caste by uttering "gwf;Tjpkfnd epy;Y". Thereafter, the second accused had not only abused but threatened P.W.1to withdraw the complaint given against him and also uttered the abusive words denigrating his caste. Hence, P.W.1 was put to mental agony and consequently, on the next day, he lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirunagar, Madurai against the accused and thereafter, the said complaint was forwarded to the Palayamkottai Medai police (vide) Ex.P-1. On receipt of the complaint Ex.P-1 on 28.10.1992 from P.W.1, the Sub Inspector P.W.7, Rasul Mohaideen, registered a case in Crime No.32/1992 against the accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (vide) Ex.P-5 and forwarded the same to the Court and copies thereof to higher officials. P.W.8, Krishna Pillai, Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai received the F.I.R., proceeded to the place of occurrence and examined P.W.3, Sadaiyan and other witnesses and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P-2, in the presence of witnesses and Ex.P-6 rough sketch and thereafter, he examined P.W.4 and recorded his statement. At the request made by P.W.8, Inspector, P.W.5, Varadarajan, Tasildar issued community certificate Ex.P-3 to the effect that P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste. After completing the investigation, P.W.8 filed a final report on 20.12.1992 against the accused under the said provision of law.

(3.) The second accused stated at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that P.W.1, Manthiram belongs to Christian religion and produced a document in support of such contention. Both have denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence at the time of questioning under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In the above circumstances, it becomes necessary to consider whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused has to be set aside as prayed for.