SUGANTHI Vs. RAMARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Revision case is directed against the judgment of the 1st Additional Sessions Court (P.C.R.), Trichy dated 31.05.2004 in Special Sessions Case No. 134 of 2003.

(2.) The Prosecution case briefly stated is as follows: (i) P.W. 1 was the resident of P.K. Agaram Arigina Street. She belonged to scheduled caste. She was one of the word members of the panchayat. They were having a society by name Amirthavalli. She was also the Vice-President of said Amirthavalli Group. There was a dispute between the Hindus and Scheduled Caste people regarding the drawing of water in the common well. Just one week prior to the date of occurrence, Pullamadi Panchayat Commissioner invited them for a talk of peace. She went along with P.Ws. 2 to 5 to meet the Commissioner. P.W.6 was also a resident of the same locality. P.W.7 also accompanied P.Ws. 2 to 5 to give a petition to the Commissioner. P.W.8 was the Block Development Officer in the Panchayat. He went to the village to enquire about the water dispute. He called upon each and every member to speak. Since there was a huge noise, he decided to form a peace committee and left the place. The complaint was given by P.W.1/Thangamani. It was received by P.W.12. Kummaraja who was the Sub-Inspector of Police, Siruganur on 24.04.2003. He registered a case in Crime No. 237/2003 under Sections 147, 3(i)(x) and 3(i) (xi) of SC & ST Act. Exhibit P.8 is the printed F.I.R. Then P.W. 13 who was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi received a copy of the FIR and visited the scene of occurrence. He prepared an observation Mahazar, Ex. P.7 and a sketch, Ex. P.9 in the presence of Murugesan P.W. 11 and Sathyeseelan. Then P.W. 13 enquired witnesses Thangamani, Suganthi, Anbushanthi, Pappathi, Kamalam, Philominal, Rajeswari, Salvamani, Vijalakshmi, Thailammal, Maruthammal, Parvatham, Vasantha, Kaliyammal, Devaki, Selvi, Neelevathi, Arokiyaraj, Muthaian, Velumani, Natarajan, Muthupandi, Balakrishan and Thiru Aathi Nadar and also recorded their statements. (ii) He also examined mahazar witnesses Sathyaseelan and Murugesan. He gave a requisition to the Deputy Tahsildar of Pullampadi to furnish the community certificates to all the accused. P.W.9, the Deputy Tehsildar of Lalgudi, as per the request of the P.W. 13, issued community certificates to all the accused. Then, he enquired BDO- Soundarajan, Raghavan, Deputy Tahsildar Santhanam, Tahsildar Ramachandran and recorded their statements. He also enquired Kummaraja, Inspector of Police and recorded his statement. Ex. P.3 series were the community certificates issued to the accused Nos. 1 to 5 viz. Ramaraj, Naa Pundungi Nattar @ Athi Nattar, Arunachalam, Chinnasamy, Sappani and Rajendran and they belonged to Uruli Goundar community. Ex. P.4 was the community certificate of accused No.6. As per Ex. P.4, 6th accused belonged to Saduchetty community. Ex. P.5 was the community certificate of accused No.7. As per Ex. P.7, 7th accused belonged to Moopanar community. P.W. 10-Ramachandran, Tahsildar of Lalgudi issued community certificates to P.Ws. 1 to 6 under Ex. P.6 series. As per Ex. P.6 series, all the witnesses 1 to 6 belonged to Hindu Scheduled Caste. P.W. 13 arrested accused 1 to 7 and sent them for remand, conducted investigation and filed a charge- sheet against the accused. On 30.05.2003, D.W.I who was the Tea shop owner present when there was panchayat meeting conducted in which the first accused and 7th accused participated. They discussed about the water problem and decided to speak on a later date and there is no dispute. This evidence is not clear about the alleged incident.

(3.) Before the trial court, P.Ws 1 to 13 were examined. D.W.1, Thiru. R. Aathi Nadar was examined as defence witness. Exhibits P.1 to P.9 were marked.