STATE OF TAMIL NADU Vs. PONNUVEL ALIAS MANIVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, for enhancement of the sentence (though wrongly stated as an appeal against the judgment of acquittal in the memorandum of grounds of appeal preferred by the State). The facts are few and may be stated. P.W. 1 Poongothai, is a member of the scheduled caste and is the President of the Association, called Vasukai Womens Welfare Manram. The accused, Ponnuvel alias Manivel, is a member of the Mudaliar community. On 18th January, 1978, P.W. 1 along with P.W. 2, Arayee, and P.W. 3 Irusammal, was working on a field of one Muthuvenkatapathy Reddiar at Sembipalayam. While P. W. 1 and others were engaged in transplanting work, the accused and one Muthulingam were diverting water. The accused asked P.W. 1 as to what is the object of the Sangam of which she is the President. P.W.1 replied to him that the object of the Sangam is to work for the welfare of the members of the Scheduled caste. The accused then asked her as to why they are not honouring the Caste Hindus as before by calling them AndeT (Master), but calling them by the name of the community to which they belong. Thereupon, the accused made reference to the caste of P.W. 1 and also the private parts of the women belonging to that community and asked her a to what her Sangam would do if he pulls her breast. Thereupon, she went to the house of the honorary. President and narrated the incident. Then she took the complaint on the next morning to the police station at Korkadu. On her way, she was told that the head constable was not available and therefore, she presented the complaint, Ex. P1, after two days. The complaint was given to P.W.6, Arumugam, a constable at the outpost at Korkadu on 22nd January, 1978. He made an entry in the General Diary and sent the complainant with another constable to Villianur police station. P.W. 7, Nagarathinam, S. I. Of Police, C.I.D. Pondicherry, received the F.I.R. from Villianur police station and registered a case in Crime No. 19 of 1978 under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 against the accused. He examined witnesses. The accused is reported to have surrendered before Court.

(2.) The trial Magistrate found that the delay in preferring the complaint has been satisfactorily explained by P.W.1 and that the words spoken to by the accused would certainly attract the provisions of Section 7(l)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act and in the end convicted the accused of the offence under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. In appeal, the learned Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, agreed with the learned trial Magistrate that an offence under Section 7(1)(d) has been mark out and continued the conviction, but curiously modified the sentence into one fine and sentenced the accused to a fine of Rs. 300, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The State has preferred this appeal for enhancement of sentence.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-accused pointed out that the State having preferred an appeal on the ground of inadequacy of sentence, the accused, while showing cause against such enhancement, can plead for his acquittal and that therefore, he may be permitted to argue on the merits of the appeal against the sentence on the ground of its inadequacy, and that the accused may plead for his acquittal also. The learned counsel therefore, has a right to go into the evidence adduced in the case and plead for the acquittal of the accused.