P ALAGARSAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALAGARSAMY, a member of the Scheduled Caste and a victim for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), having suffered by the alleged mala fide investigation made by the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk Police station and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga, has tapped the doors of the highest court of this State requesting to invoke the inherent power of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to correct the injustice done to him.

(2.) THE factual matrix, which are required for solving the controversy, could be summarised as follows: (a) Alagarsamy, the petitioner herein, is the resident of Keerani Village, Devakottai Taluk. He is an agriculturist. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. He is also connected with the organisations which used to fight for the redressal of grievances of the members of Scheduled Caste by reporting to the authorities for proper reliefs. He made a complaint to the Revenue Authorities with regard to the cutting of trees in the waste land of the Government by some unauthorised people. (b) On 10.11.1997 at about 4.30 P.M., while he was standing in front of the rice mill belonged to Lakshmanan of Anumanthakudi, one Subramanian of Alangudi and other persons of Lakkamari and Alangudi belong to Kallar caste came and surrounded him. THE said Subramanian took out his chappal and began to beat him on head and cheek by shouting When the petitioner shouted and resisted the beating by both hands, other four persons beat him with hands. On hearing the noise, Nanakudi Thains and Chettianthal Duriraju came and intervened and rescued the petitioner from the assault by the persons mentioned above. (c) Immediately thereafter, on the same day at about 8.00 P.M., he came to Devakottai Taluk Police station and gave a complaint. One Arul Santhosamuthu, Sub-Inspector of Police received the complaint and registered a case in Crime No. 229 of 1997 for the offences under Section 147, 341, 355 and 323, I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) of the act against the said Subramanian and 4 others. (d) THE original copies of the F.I.R. were immediately sent to the Special Court (Principal Sessions Court) at Sivaganga and Mr. Nagarajan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sivaganga (5th respondent herein) for making investigation under Rule 7 of the Act, as the Deputy Superintendent of Police is the competent authority to investigate the offences committed under the Act. (e) On 10.11.1997 at 8.45 P.M., the first informant was examined by Doctor, who found injuries on his cheek and head. It is stated in the wound certificate that he was alleged to have been attacked with hands and chappals by known persons. (f) Mr. Nagarajan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, on receipt of F.I.R. copy on 12.11.1997 at about 1.00 P.M., took up investigation and went to the spot at 3.00 P.M. At Anumanthakudi, he examined Alagarsamy, Lakshmanan, Chelliah, Manickam, Ramanathan and Chellan. (g) Witness No.5 Ramanathan and witness No. 6 Chellan were the witnesses for the observation mahazar and the sketch. Witness No. 1 Alagarsamy would state about what had happened, as stated in the F.I.R. Witness No. 2 Lakshmanan and Witness No.3 Chellaiah would state that though the occurrence had taken place, the accused persons did not abuse by using caste name. (h) On the basis of these statements, Mr. Nagarajan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, came to the conclusion that the complaint was given by Alagarsamy with exaggerated version and that though the occurrence had taken place, it has been falsely stated in the complaint that he was abused by using the name of caste, in order to harass the accused persons (i) THErefore, the Deputy Superintendent of Police decided to delete the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and directed the Inspector of Police, Taluk Police Station, Devakottai (6th respondent herein) to take further action in respect of other offences under Sections 147, 341, 355 and 323, I.P.C. THE entire file was sent back to the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk on 12.11.1997 itself. (j) On receipt of the file, the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk, on 20.11.1997 took up the matter for further enquiry in respect of offences under Sections 147, 341, 355 and 323, I.P.C. and again went to the spot on the same day and examined 8 witnesses. (k) Alagarsamy, witness No.1, spoke about the occurrence. Witness Nos. 2 and 3 Lakshmanan and Chellaiah also spoke about the occurrence. THEy would state that no caste name was used. Witness No.4 Manickam and Witness No. 5 Ramanathan would state that they did not know anything about the occurrence. Witness No. 5 Ramanathan and Witness No. 6 Chellan are mahazar witnesses. Witness No. 7 Durairaju would state that the accused subramanian questioned Alagarsamy as to why he sent petition in respect of cutting of trees and beat him on the cheek Witness No. 8 .Thains would state that there was a quarrel between Alagarsamy and Subramanian over the cutting of the trees and he separated them. (1) On the basis of further investigation, the Inspector of Police, Devakottai Taluk, concluded that offences under Sections 341 and 323 alone were made out and arrested Subramanian on the same day. Since the F.I.R. was pending before the Special Court at Sivaganga, he sent a requisition dated 20.11.1997 through police constable Michael to Sivaganga praying the special Court to transfer the F.I.R. and the complaint copy to the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai to enable him to remand the accused. Since the Special Judge was on leave, the Inspector of Police himself released the accused on bail asking him to appear before released the Magistrate, Devakottai on 28.11.1997. (m) THEreafter, he prepared charge-sheet against Subramanian only for the offences under Sections 341 and 323, I.P.C. after deletion of the offence under Section 355, I.P.C. and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai on 21.11.1997 itself. As stated earlier, he sent the above requisition to the Special Judge, Sivaganga on the ground that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act was deleted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of the first investigation made by him. (n) On 25.11.1997, the Special Judge cum Principal Sessions Judge, Sivaganga, in pursuance of the said requisition, ordered for the transfer of the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate Devakottai. (o) On 28.11.1997, the case was taken on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai in S.T.C. No. 656 of 1997 in respect of the offences under Sections 341 and 323, I.P.C. against Subramanian alone and on that date, the accused was present before the Court. On questioning, he pleaded guilty and he was convicted on the plea of guilt for the offence under Section 341 and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 week and for the offence under Section 323, I.P.C., he was sentenced to pay a find of Rs.150, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 weeks. On the same day, the find amount was paid and the case was closed. (p) Thus, even without any intimation to the first informant/the petitioner herein, about the dropping of the offence under the Act and the transfer of F.I.R. from the Special Court, Sivaganga to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Devakottai and deletion of another offence under Section 355 I.P.C. and the filing of charge-sheet for the minor offences under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C. and the case was taken on file and the accused was convicted on the plea of guilt and on payment of fine, the entire procee dings was closed.

(3.) MR. Karthikeyan, the learned Government Advocate, would also file a written submission and would state that the first informant must be given an opportunity only when the final report submitted to the Special Court referring the entire case and no opportunity need be given to the first informant, since only F.I.R. was requested to be transmitted to the Judicial Magistrate, Devakottai and the final report was filed for other I.P.C. offences. He would also submit that, at any rate, it is open to the first informant/the petitioner herein to file a private complaint in respect of the offence under the Act, since the earlier conviction for the I.P.C. offences being the distinct offences would not be a bar for the same as per the provision of Section 300, Cr.P.C.