MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.34 of 2003, on the file of the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. Totally, there are four accused in this case. The first accused stood charged for the offence under Ss. 506(ii), 323 IPC and Ss. 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The second accused stood charged for the offence under Ss. 506(ii), 307, 324 IPC and 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused 3 and 4 stood charged for the offence under Ss. 506(ii) IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court, by Judgment, dtd. 4/9/2006, convicted the first accused for the offence under Sec. 323 I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months, under Sec. 323 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months under Sec. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The first accused was acquitted from the charges under Sec. 506(ii) IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Trial Court also convicted the second accused under Sec. 324 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The second accused was acquitted from the charges under Ss. 506(ii), 307 IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused 3 and 4 were acquitted from all the charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused 1 and 2 are before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- P.W.1 is an injured eye witness in this case. P.W.1 borrowed a sum of Rs.20,000.00 from the first accused for interest at the rate of 12% per annum and he has also repaid the entire loan amount along with interest. At the time of borrowal, P.W.1 mortgaged his property. After discharging the loan amount, P.W.1 asked for cancelling the mortgage deed. But, the first accused refused. While so, on 16/2/2003, at about 03.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was standing in front of tea shop of one Ramasamy Thevar at Kapaliparai, all the four accused came there in a bike and demanded money and at that time, the first accused abused P.W.1 by calling his caste name and the second accused attacked him with knife on his shoulder. At that time, P.W.2, who is a relative of P.W.1, came there and prevented them. The first accused scolded him by calling his caste name . The first accused also attacked P.W.2 with a knife on his head. Then, all the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint. P.W.9, the Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.19 of 2003, under Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Ex.P.14 is the First Information Report. On receipt of the First Information Report, P.W.10, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, commenced investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar and also a Rough Sketch, showing the place of occurrence, in the presence of the witnesses. Then, he examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused 1 and 2. He collected the medical records, examined the doctor and finally laid charge sheet.

(3.) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. When the accused were questioned in respect of the charges, they denied the charges. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and marked 15 documents and 2 Material Objects.