Professional Documents
Culture Documents
PART I
The researcher had a sound experience to handle the laws and cases related to
SC/ST Act. This study was unique in nature. Therefore, the researcher used case study
analysis to understand the problems and nature of crimes among the Dalit population.
A total of 138 cases were identifier from varies courts and analysed in this study.
However, to do an indepth research.One fourth of the cases. i.e., 35 cases were selected
For case analysis, the research random selected 35 cases in which judgements
were delivered at Coimbatore District Court, High Court of Madras and Supreme Court of
Case No: 01
59
to Hindu Valaya community, residing at Neelambur, Coimbatore District. The accused 1 and
2 had got house property in Jeeva Street, Neelambur and they were working in a private
company. The accused had got family consisting of wife and children.
complainant had got family and children. The complainant was working as an assistant to
the driver of the lorry with Regn No TAP 5668. On 05.12.2001at about 7 a.m. the lorry
driver Prakash was reversing the lorry into the nearby foundry, the complainant was
helping and assisting his driver to get the lorry to get into the foundry in reverse mode.
At that time the accused 1 and 2 questioned the complainant about his right of driving the
lorry, in the disputed common pathway. They abused and scolded the complainant with
caste name of the complainant who belonged to Arunthathiar community and the accused
assaulted the complainant on his hip and back with a stick and by hand at the place of
occurrence in question. So the case was preferred and against the accused 1 and 2.
Sulur Police Station, Coimbatore on 05.12.2001 against the accused 1 and 2. The police
registered a case on 05.12.2001 and filed FIR with Cr.No.63/2002 against the accused
The case was registered by the Sulur police officials and the accused were
charged for the offence under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and section 323 and 506 (ii) of IPC. The case was
taken up for trial before the above said court on 10.02.2004. The accused appeared before
the court on 10.02.2004 and denied all the offences charged against them.
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 10.02.2004 to
16.02.2004. In the above case the trial was conducted for about 6 days. The case was
60
registered on 01.02.2002 and the trial of the case was conducted only on 10.02.2004.
There was a delay in conducting the enquiry before this Hon'ble Court was not wanton.
The delay was caused only due to the reasons that the police authorities were engaged in
pandobust duty and law and order issues. Also due to inadequate number of staff, rise in
crimes, large number of undetected cases there was a delay in producing the witnesses
before the Hon'ble Court for enquiry. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-8 were marked
and witnesses Pw-1 to PW-7 were examined to prove the case against the accused.
For the above reasons, the offences charged against the accused under section
3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
section 323 and 506(ii) of IPC were not proved. The court on considering the evidence of
PW-1 and PW-4 and applying the doctrine of benefit of doubt in favour of accused 1 and
2 for the said offence in this case and decided that the case against the accused has not
been proved. As the case against the accused were not proved beyond doubt, the accused
were acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. in this case. The bail bonds executed by
61
Case No: 02
Occurrence Date 28.02.1998 at Sungam, near Chinthamani Super Market, Trichy road,
The Case was preformed against the accused l. Mr.Kabilan Palanisamy, 2. Mr.Pattarai
Siva @ A.S. Sivakumar and Mr.S.Arasan Palanisamy. The accused 1 and 3 belonged to Hindu
residing at Sungam, near Chinthamani Super Market, Coimbatore. The accused 1 and 3 were
doing various small businesses and accused No.2 was having barber shop. The three accused
were having family consisting of wife and children. The accused were members of DMK party
and at the hardcore care of the DMK, which is a major political party in Tamil Nadu.
to Bahujan Samaj Party and he was a driver of a car which was belonging to Bahujan Samaj
Party. The above said complainant had got family and children. On 28.02.1998 when he
was driving the car near the Avin Milk Booth situated in Trichy Road, near Chinthamani
Super Market at Sungam, the accused and twelve other unidentified persons assembled
unlawfully and abducted the complainant in an ambassador car from Sungam to DMK
Election office at Bharathi Nagar and in that process the accused No. l intentionally assaulted
the complainant and abused his caste as name he belonged to Arunthathiar community in
public and the accused 1 and 3 had also scolded with caste name in public. So the case was
62
The complainant Mr.Murugavel had lodged a complaint for the occurrence before
B-7, Police Station at Ramanathapuram, Coimbatore on 28.02.1998 against all the three
accused. The police registered a case on 28.02.1998 and filed FIR with Cr. No. 177/1998
The case was registered by the B-7, (Ramanathapuram) police officials and the
accused were charged for the offence under section 365 of IPC and 3(1 )(x) of Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up
for trial before the above said court on 07.11.2003. The accused appeared before the
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 07.11.2003 to
12.11.2003.In the above case, the trial was conducted for about 6 days. The case was
registered on 28.02.1998 and the trial of the case was conducted only on 07.11.2003.
There was a delay in conducting the enquiry before this Hon'ble Court is not wanton.
The delay was caused due to the reasons that the police authorities have got pandobust
duty and law and order issues. Also due to the inadequate number of staff, rise in crimes,
large number of undetected cases there was a delay in producing the witnesses before the
Hon'ble Court for enquiry. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-9 were marked and
witnesses Pw-1 to PW-7 were examined to prove the case against the accused.
For the above reasons, the charges framed against the accused under section 365
of IPC and 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 were not proved. The court on considering the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-5
63
the doctrine of benefit of doubt was applied in favour of the accused Al and A2 for the
said offence and case against the accused was not proved beyond doubt. All the accused
were acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. in this case. The bail bonds executed by
Case No: 03
Occurrence Date 30.07.1993 at Rasali Pirivu and Bellae palayam to Anaipalli pudur
The case was registered against the accused Mr.Palanisamy, S/o Mr.Kittappan.
The accused belonged to Hindu Valayar Community and was residing at Rasali Pirivu
and Bellae palayam to Anaipalli pudur Road. The accused owned a lorry. The accused
has got family and children. The complainant was working as a coolie in the lorry owned by
the accused. On 30.07.1993 after completion of the daily routine work the complainant
demanded the wages from the accused. At that time the accused scolded him with his caste
name and used abusive and filthy language and humiliated the complainant.
The complainant Mr.Makali lodged a complaint about the offence with PCR
Wing, Coimbatore on 23.08.1993 against the accused. The police registered a case on
23.08.1993 and filed FIR with Cr.No. 16/1993 against the accused and also on the same
day, FIR with a Cr No.260/1993 at Sirumugai Police Station was filed under whose
jurisdiction it occurred.
64
The case was registered by the Sirumugai police officials and the accused was
charged with the offence under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial before the above
said court on 03.07.2001. The accused appeared before the court on 03.07.2001 and
denied the offence charges framed against him. The trial of the case was pending before
the Hon'ble Court from 30.07.1993 to 06.07.2001. In the above case the trial was
conducted for about 4 days. There was a delay in conducting the enquiry before this
Hon'ble Court from 30.07.1993 to 06.07.2001. The trial was conducted on 03.07.2001.
There was an inordinate delay for so many years from the date of the charge sheet. The
delay was caused due to the reasons that the police authorities had pandobust duty, law
and order issues and inadequate number of staff, rise in crimes, large number of
undetected cases which lead to delay in producing the witnesses before the Hon'ble Court
for enquiry. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-7 were marked and witnesses Pw-1 to
For the above reasons, the offence charged against the accused under section
3(1 )(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were
not proved as the evidence of PW-1 the court cannot be considered as he was not
speaking the truth. Hence the oral evidence of PW-1 to PW-3 failed to bring the truth to
the surface, the accused cannot be convicted for the above said offence, though the
accused belonged to a non schedule caste and PW-1 belonged to scheduled caste
community. Hence the case against the accused was not proved beyond doubt. The bail
65
Case No: 04
In this case against the accused l. Mr. Mani, S/o Mr. Vellingiri Gounder,
2Mr.Aruchamy, S/o Mr. Muthusamy Gounder, Mr. S. Chinnasamy, S/o Mr.Pancha Gounder,
@ Thangavel Gounder, S/o Mr. Mayilsamy Gounder, Mr.S.Mani, S/o Mr. Krishnasamy
Gounder, 9. Mr. Murthy, S/o Mr. Kannappa Gounder. All the accused belonged to Hindu
Kongu Vellalar Community and were residing at Kaliapuram Village, Pollachi Taluk.
The accused were all close relatives. They had owned properties in the said village.
All the accused had a respectable family consisting of wife, children, father and mother.
They all enjoyed strong political support in their native. They were also notable persons
in the village. They had mass public support among the caste Hindus in their locality.
under SC /ST community. The above said complainant has got family and children.
Kaliapuram Panchayat. On 16.01.2001 at about 2.45 p.m. the complainant was part of the
procession with drum beatings as part of the Pongal celebration. The complainant came
near the house of one Mr.Palanisamy in the same village. The accused 1 to 9 were also
66
engaged in drum beating on the other side of the road. The accused 1 to 9 prevented the
complainant and his party from proceeding towards their side and assaulted the
complainant and his party. The accused hit and threw crackers and assaulted the
complainant on the shoulder and scolded them with filthy and abusive language. Also
the accused used the victims caste name during the tussle.
Madukkarai Police station on 16.01.2001 against all the accused. The police registered a
case on 17.01.2001 and filed FIR with Cr.No.22/2001 against the accused.
The case was registered by the police officials and the accused were charged for
the offence under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under section 147, 148, 341, 336 and 323 of IPC. The case was
taken up for trial before the above said court on 17.02.2002. The accused appeared before
the court on 17.02.2002 and denied all the offences charged against them. The trial of the
case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 05.08.2003 to 06.08.2003. In the above
case the trial was conducted for 2 days. There was a delay in conducting the enquiry
before this Hon'ble Court from 16.01.2001 to 06.08.2003. The trial was conducted on
05.08.2003. There was a delay of 30 months from the date of charge sheet. The delay was
caused due to the reasons that the police authorities have got pandobust duty and law and
order issues and transfer of enquiry officers. Also there was a delay in producing the witnesses
before the Hon'ble Court for enquiry. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-ll were marked
and witnesses Pw-1 to PW-13 were examined to prove the case against the accused.
For the above said reasons, the charges framed against the accused under section
3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and
67
under section 147, 148, 341, 336 and 323 of IPC were not proved as the evidence of
PW-I to PW-13 and the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused Al to
A9 beyond reasonable doubt. The nature of the evidence in question, the doctrine of
benefit of doubt in favour of the accused Al to A9 was applied and hence the charges
against the accused was not proved beyond doubt. The accused were acquitted under
section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. The bail bonds executed by them were also cancelled.
Case No: 05
In this case the accused was charged under section 376 IPC and charged under
section 3(1) (xii). The accused belonged to Hindu Community. The complainant
X standard. She was living with her mother and sisters. On 29.12.2006 she left her house
and her mother Selvi searched for her, but she was not able to trace her where about and
lodged a complaint with the All Women’s Police Station, Coimbatore South.
The case was registered against the accused that the accused had kidnapped
Dhanalakshmi. The accused belonged to middle class family and belonging to Devanga
Chettiar Community. He was also a student. He was living with his father and mother.
The accused took the girl without the knowledge and consent of the complainant's family to
Mettupalayam and married her. The accused intentionally had intercourse with the said
girl. On the complaint preferred by mother of the said girl a case was registered against the
68
accused. On the basis of the complaint the accused was charged under section 376 of IPC
and also section 3(I)(xii) Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
The case was registered as FIR No. 1/2007 and tried before this Hon’ ble Court
and the case was adjourned so many times due to the non presentation of witnesses by the
prosecution. Lastly, the case was tried by this Hon'ble Court and witnesses were
examined and some of the witnesses turned hostile and the prosecution had not proved
the offence lodged against the accused. The court decided that the accused did not
commit any offence as stated in the complaint and the accused was acquitted on
The case was decided in favour of the accused and the charge against the accused
under section 378 IPC and the charge under section 3(l)(xii) Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act 1989 was dismissed and the accused was acquitted
under section 235(1) of Cr.PC. Also the warrant issued against the accused was cancelled.
Case No: 06
This Case was against the accused Mr.Ponnusamy Chettiar (aged 68),
S/o Mr.Pappu Chettiar. 2. Mr. Ramamurthy (aged 39), S/o Mr.Ponnusamy Chettiar. The
accused are father and son and belonged to Devanga Chettiar Community. They were
doing a small business and also lending money to the poor people who were in need of
69
The complainant Ms.Sundari belonged to SC community. She was a daily wage
agricultural labour. She was living with her husband and children. The complainant
Sundari, borrowed, a loan of Rs.1,000/- from the accused. The complainant settled
Rs.850/- and the balance of Rs. 150/- is to be payable by the said Sundari to the accused.
On 05.04.2007 when she crossed the petti shop belonged to accused, the first accused
demanded to settle the balance amount of Rs.150/-. The complainant was not able to
settle the balance amount at that time. The 1st accused scolded the complainant in filthy
language mentioning her caste name which is an offence under SC/ST Act. Hence a
quarrel broke out between them and hence the complainant preferred a complaint before
The police officials registered the case with Cr.No.63/2007 and FIR No. 12/2007
against the accused and charged the 1st accused under section 354 I.P.C. and 3(1 )(x) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and also 323 of
I.P.C. The 2nd accused was charged under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also 323 of I.P.C. The accused denied all
The above case was pending for enquiry before the Hon’ble from 06.04.2007 to
12.06.2008. The public prosecutor got adjournment for about one year because of the
reasons that the witnesses were not present for enquiry and also busy with maintenance of
law and orders problems the police officials were not able to bring the witnesses for
enquiry. The case was taken up for trial on 04.06.2008 by the Hon'ble Court. Some of the
witnesses word turned hostile and some of the witnesses deposed that they did not know
70
After the trial and cross examination of the witnesses, the offence charged against
the lst accused under section 354 of I.P.C. and section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and also under 323 of Cr. P.C. and
the charge against the 2nd accused under section 3(1)00 of Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under 323 of I.P.C were dismissed.
Police had not proved the offence beyond any doubt and the accused were acquitted and
Case No: 07
Case against the accused Sasikumar (aged 24), S/o Selvaraj 2.Sakthivel @ Sakthi (aged 26),
S/o Selvaraj.
under one the village head (Oor Gounder) as (Maestri) supervisor to look after the lands. He
along with his wife and children was residing in the farm house owned by the village head.
The accused were all brothers. The 1st accused was the working under one Immanuel
who was the owner of the Cycle stand viz., MRS Cycle Stand. The 2ndaccused was also
working under the said Immanuel. The accused belonged to Kongu Vellalar Community.
The complainant Ramasamy bought one recharge coupon for his cell phone from
Immanuel. Mr. Immanuel did not know how to recharge the coupon in the cell phone and
asked the complainant to get help from the 1st accused to recharge coupon.
The complainant requested the first accused to recharge the coupon . The 1st accused
71
refused to help the complainant and wantedly quarrelled with the complainant and
scolded in filthy language mentioning his caste name and also kicked and beat the
complainant for no reason. The complainant lodged a complaint with Negamam Police
Station against the accused on 09.08.2007. The police registered the case in FIR and filed
with No. 15/2007 against the accused under section 323 I.P.C. and under section,
3(1 )(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
In the above case after framing the charge against the accused the case was
pending before the Hon'ble session Court from 09.08.2007 to 13.06.2008. In the above
case the witnesses were not present for enquiry for about 6 months by the prosecution.
The public prosecutor pleaded for several adjournments during the trial of the case. In the
trial the witnesses were turned hostile and they said that they did not know about the offence
made out against the accused. All the witnesses did not help to prove the offence charged
against the accused. Hence the Hon'ble Court acquitted the accused on 16.06.2008.
The charge framed against the accused under section 323 of I.P.C. and under
Act, 1989 was not proved. The complainant police was not able to prove the offence
without any doubt against the accused and the accused were acquitted from the charges
lodged against them and the warrant against the accused was also cancelled.
72
Case No: 08
wage earner. He was living with his wife and children in Kongalna garampudur in
Coimbatore district. At the time of the occurrence of the offence the complainant went to
the shop which belonged to the accused P.Ramu, situated near Arima Thirumana
Mandapam in the said village. The complainant wanted to purchase pan, betalnut and had
requested the accused to give the same. But the accused refused to sell pan and betal for
the reason that the complainant belonged to SC. The verbal duo between them broke into
a quarrel and inturn, the accused attacked the complainant with an iron rod and also
scolded the later in filthy language mentioning his caste name. The complainant lodged a
The police registered the case against the accused and filed FIR with No. 18/2008
and the case was pending for enquiry for about 8 months. The enquiry was delayed for
the reasons that due to Pandobust duty, delay in producing the witnesses before the court
and also of non availability of the public prosecutor, the case was taken up for trial only
in the lst week of January 2009. The trial was conducted for four days and lastly after due
enquiry ,the case against the accused was decided in favour of the accused on 28.01.2009.
73
The accused belonged to Hindu Maravar community and he was the owner of the
petty shop. There were some quarrels between the accused and the complainant lodged a
The accused was charged under section 324 of I.P.C. and under section 3(1) (x) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused
denied the offence charged against him. The witnesses were not considered as there was
no proper evidence with regard to the quarrel between the accused and complainant.
In the above case after the full trial and examination of the witnesses, the charges
against the accused under section 324 I.P.C. and under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not proved clearly.
The complainant police had not proved the offence without any doubt against the accused
and hence the accused was acquitted from the charges against him and the warrant
Case No: 09
The case was against the accused Aruchamy (aged 43), S/o Rayappa Gounder.
Community. The accused owned agricultural land and movable properties in his village and
he was an important person in the village and enjoyed a reputation among the village people.
74
The complainant Selva belonged to SC community and was an agricultural daily
wage earner at Muthugounden pudur. She was 36 years old and she was living with her
husband and children. She was residing in the farm shed owned by Muthumanickam.
On 12.08.2008 the complainant Selva went from her residence to land owned by
Subramaniam and the accused forced the complainant and harassed sexually and tried to
rape her. When the complainant objected, the accused threatened the complainant and
scolded with filthy language mentioning her caste name. The complainant lodged a
complaint with Perur Police station. The Perur police registered case and filed FIR
On the basis of the complaint the accused was charged under section 376 of I.P.C.
and under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 by the Perur Police. However, the accused denied the offence
On the basis of the charge framed against the accused, 14 witnesses were examined
and witnesses 2, 6 and 7 turned hostile and the other witnesses were not strong enough to
prove the offence. The public prosecutor produced documents 1 to 17 and also the
accused filed one document i.e. a letter to prove his case. All the documents were marked
and the witnesses were examined. But the charge made against the accused was not
proved beyond any doubt and hence the court decided the issue in favour of the accused
The accused was charged under section 376 I.P.C and under section 3(1 )(x) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989 which was not
75
proved clearly. The police had not proved the offence beyond any doubt against the
accused and he was acquitted from the charge framed against him and the warrant against
Case No: 10
The case was framed against the accused Ravi @ Padmanaban (aged, 42),
S/o Srinivasan. The accused owned agricultural lands and movable properties in his village.
village. He was a dominant person and most of the villagers were closely related to him.
operator in Kethanur Panchayat Board office. Kittan was living with his wife and
children. On 17.09.2007, the complainant Kittan supplied water to Harijan Colony and
was returning back in his TVS mophed. The accused stopped the complainant. But the
complainant did not stop the vehicle and tried to proceed. The accused obstructed the
vehicle and stopped the complainant and scolded Kittan with filthy language mentioning
his caste name and beat and kicked the complainant. So the complainant lodged a
The police took the complaint and registered a case against the accused and filed
FIR No.5/2008 on 17.09.2007 and the case was taken before the above said Court.
The accused was charged under section 341, 323 and 506(1) of I.P.C. and under section
76
3(1 )(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The accused denied all the offences charged against him before the court of law.
The case was pending before the above said court from 17.09.2007 to 24.10.2008.
The delay in trial has happened only due to the non production of the witnesses, for the
reason that the police officials were engaged in some other law and order issues and also
due to change of enquiry officer. Also the witnesses were not present and the trial was
not commenced. At last the trial was conducted for about 10 days in the second week of
October. At the time of trial the witnesses were examined in full length and the charges
made against the accused were proved and the accused was sentenced with 6 months
vigorous imprisonment and also with fine of Rs. 1,000/-under section 341 of Cr.P.C.
Also the accused was sentenced with 3 months vigorous imprisonment under section 323
and was sentenced under section 428 of Cr.P.C. and to serve both the punishment
simultaneously. The offence under section 506(1) was not proved beyond doubt and
In this case the accused was under section 341, 323 and 506(1) of I.P.C. and
under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989, prosecution had not proved the offence under section 506(1) and here accused
was acquitted from the offence under section 506(1) framed against him.
77
Case No: 11
This case was against the accused Rajkumar (aged 50), S/o Ponnusamy Thevar.
Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. His daughter Sivagowri was working
Sivagowri had illegal association with the accused for the past 2 years. So the accused
and the daughter of the complainant were living together as husband and wife at
He did not take Ms.Sivagowri to Chennai. So the quarrel erupted between the accused
and the complainant's daughter, the accused scolded the complainant's daughter
Sivagowri in a filthy language using her caste name and told that she must go and live at
Thanjavur which was her native place or otherwise she should die. The complainant
consumed poison and attempted suicide. She was admitted at Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital
and was taken to Thanjavur for further treatment. There she died on 01.04.2006 without
responding to treatment.
78
The complainant Ramesh lodged a complaint on 01.04.2006 with the Coimbatore
East police station against the accused. The police registered a case and filed FIR No. 1
The accused was charged for the offence under section 306 of I.P.C. and under
Act,1989.
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 01.04.2006 to
22.09.2008. The delay in commencing the trial of the case due to the inability of the
witnesses who were doctors to attend the court to develop their evidence as witness and
were forced to skip hearing because of continuous duty. The case was taken up for trial in
the 1st week of September 2008. The prosecution had identified 22 witness. But it faced
so many hurdles in producing them before the trail court for examination to prove the
case. Due to the delay in producing the witnesses before the trail and the enquiry,
examination all got delayed. Some of the witnesses turned hostile and some of the
witnesses did not know the proper reason for the death of the deceased Ms.Sivagowri.
The case was not proved beyond doubt and hence the accused was acquitted.
For the above reasons, the charge framed against the accused under section 306 of
I.P.C. and under section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not established. The prosecution side has not proved the offence
under section 306 of I.P.C and hence the accused was acquitted under section 235(l) of
Cr.P.C. from the charges against him and the warrant against the accused was also cancelled.
79
Case No: 12
This case was against the accused l. Shanmuga sundaram (aged 45), S/o Chellappa
Gounder, 2. Padma (aged 38), W/o Shanmuga sundaram, B.Leelavathy (aged 55),
D/o Raasamy, 4.Ramasamy (aged 70), S/o Kandappa Gounder. All the accused were
living in a joint family and they belonged to Kongu Vellalar Community. They were
agriculturists and they were doing agricultural operations in their own land. The accused
a sweeper at RVS Group of companies. Karuppathal was aged about 45 years and she
was living with her husband and children. At the time of occurrence of the offence on
12.11.2008 the complainant and few other ladies who were belonging to her community
The accused at that time came to the field in a van and stopped and got down
from the van and scolded the complainant and other ladies who were working there in a
filthy language and beat the complainant and 9 others with stick and threatened that they
would kill them if they see them in their agricultural land in future.
12.11.2008 against all the accused. The police registered a case and filed FIR No.7/2007
80
The case was registered by the police officials and the accused were charged for
the offence under section 147 of I. P.C. and under section 3(l)(x) of Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the accused 1 and 4 also were
charged under section 323 and 506(2) of I.P.C. The accused appeared before the court
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 12.11.2006 to
15.10.2008. In the above case the witnesses 1 to 14 were examined and the documents
1 to 25 were marked as exhibits to prove the averments in the complaint. The where
about of some of the witnesses were not known and they were not made to present before
the court and hence the case was adjourned repeatedly. At last the case was heard in the
1stweek of October 2008. The case was contested by the Advocate for the accused and he
could appear before the court for his personal reasons. Due to that delay in enquiry the
case was hampered. Lastly, the witnesses were enquired and on 15.08.2008 the
For the above reasons, the charges against the accused under section 147 and
under section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities ) Act, 1989 and section 323 and 506(2) of IPC was not made out against the
accused. The prosecution has not proved the offence under section 3(l)(x), 3(1)(v) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and section 323
and 506(2) of IPC was also proved and level the accused were acquitted under sec.
235(1) Cr.P.C and the warrant against all the accused were also cancelled.
81
Case No: 13
This case was against the accused l. Rangasamy Gounder (aged 65), S/o
3.ValJiammal (aged 40), W/o Kuppusamy Gounder. The accused were joint family
members and they all belonged to Hindu Padayachi Gounder Community. They had
some leasehold land adjacent to the complainant's land. The leasehold land belonged to
one Chellammal. The accused were the lessees of the said land and they were doing
agricultural operation in the above said lands. The accused were all belonging to a
She owned about 50 cents of land adjacent to the land possessed by the accused. She was
doing agriculture in the land that belonged to her. The land was allotted to her by
Government of Tamil Nadu. The complainant lived in the village along with family
members. At the time of occurrence of the incident on 15.07.2006 the complainant was
working in her land. The 1st accused let his cows for grazing into crop raised by
Sarkaraiammal. The complainant objected the entry of cows of the accused into her land.
The 1st accused assaulted the complainant and scolded her in filthy language which
cannot be established here. The 2nd and 3rd accused also attacked the complainant with
sugar cane and some wooden sticks. The complainant sustained injury due to the attack.
82
The complainant Sarkaraiammal lodged a complaint in Komaralingam Police
Station on 29.07.2005 against all the accused. The police registered a case and filed FIR
The case was registered by the police officials and the 1st accused was charged for
the offence under section 447, 426 and under section 3(l)(x) of Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the 2nd and 3rd accused were
charged under section 355, 323 of IPC and under section 3(1 )(x) of Schedule Caste and
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all the accused were charged
under section 506(ii) of IPC. The case was taken up for trial before the above said court.
The accused appeared before the court and denied all the charges made against them.
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 15.07.2006 to
10.9.2007. In the above case the trial was conducted for about 5 days. In the above case
witnesses 1 to 9 were examined with regard to the charges framed against the accused. Due
to the maintenance of law and order problem and pandobust duty the police officials were
not able to produce the witnesses before this Hon'ble Court for trial. Further non-availability
of the public prosecutor the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court for about one year.
So there was a delay in deciding the above said case by the Hon'ble court. In the above case
For the above reasons, the charges framed against the accused under section 447,
426 and under section 3(l)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act 1989 and the 2nd and 3rd accused 4 were charged under section 355, 323 of
IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and all the accused were charged under section 506(ii) of IPC.
83
In the above case after the trial and cross examination of the witnesses and
examining documentary evidence, the case against the accused was not proved beyond
doubt by the prosecution side. All the accused were acquitted and the warrant against
Case No: 14
This case was against the accused I.Selvaraj @ Thambu S/o Nataraj,
S/o Periasamy Gounder. The accused 1 and 2 were brothers and 3 and 4 accused were
neighbours and they all belonged to Hindu Vaduga Community and were also relatives.
They were well to do persons in the locality and they were doing agricultural operations
and they have owned lands and house properties in that village. The accused were the
The complainant Balamani belonged to SC community. She was a widow and she
had got one son. They were residing in a hut nearby the accused properties.
The complainant was allotted a piece of Purampoke land by the Govt. of Tamil Nadu for
constructing house closer to the house of the accused. On 06.08.2002 when the
complainant had started to construct a house in the site allotted to her. The accused had
prevented the complainant from constructing the house. All the accused 1 to 4 attempted
to set fire at the house of complainant and had attempted to murder her.
84
The complainant Balamani lodged a complaint in the Udumalpet Police Station
on 11.08.2002 against all the accused. The police registered a case and filed FIR with
The case was registered by the police and the accused were charged for the
offence under section 307 r/w 34 and under section 3(1 )(x) 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial
before the above said court on 22.08.2003. All the accused appeared before the court and
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 06.08.2002 to
13.01.2004. In the above case the trial was conducted only for about 7 days. In the above
case witnesses 1 to 10 were examined with regard to the offence committed by the
accused. Due to some law and order problem and also change of enquiry officers and non
production of the witnesses before the Court for enquiry, there was delay in conducting
the enquiry, which lead to delay in deciding the above said case by the Hon'ble court. In
the above case the exhibits P-l to P-IO were submitted and MO 1 series and 2 series were
For the above reasons, the offence charged against the accused under sec. 307 r/w
34 and under section 3(1)(x) 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention
In the above case the trial was conducted by examining the witnesses and
submitted exhibits and MOs. However the case against the accused was not proved
beyond doubt by the prosecution and the charges against the accused were dismissed.
85
The benefit of doubt went in favour of the accused A-l to A-4 for the said offences in
this case. Hence the accused A-l to A-4 were acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C in
this case. The bail bonds executed by them were also cancelled.
Case No: 15
Velliampalayam Village. The accused were close relatives. They owned properties in that
village. The accused belonged to respectable families and were living with family
members. They were all politically influencial persons. They were also important persons
caste which comes under SC category. The said complainants had family and children.
Village. They placed a name board bearing the name "Adi Dravidar Peravai" on the
electric lamp post at Velliampalayam. While doing so, accused Al to A5 who were all
86
caste Hindus removed the said name board on 15.01.2001 at about 9.15 p.m. Also the Al
to A5 abused them in filthy language, and also used the caste name of the complainant in
a derogatory manner.
before Guddimangalam Police station under whose jurisdiction the incident occurred on
19.01.2001 against the accused. The police registered a case on 19.01.2001 and filed FIR
The case was registered by the police and the accused were charged for the
offences under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial before the above said court on
02.06.2003. All the accused appeared before the court on 28.10.2002 and had denied the
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 02.06.2003 to
03.06.2003. In the above case the trial was conducted only for about 2 days. There was a
delay of 30 months for trail before the Hon’ble court from the date of charge sheet.
The delay was caused due to the reasons that the police authorities had got pandobust
duty and law and order problem and transfer of enquiry officers, further the trail was
delayed for non production of witness before the Hon'ble Court for enquiry. In the above
case the exhibits P-l to P-13 were marked and witnesses Pw-1 to PW-7 were examined to
For the above said reasons, the charges framed against the accused under section
3(1 )(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were
not proved with the evidence of PW-1 to PW-7 and the prosecution failed to prove the
87
charges against the accused Al to A5 beyond reasonable doubt in this case. The nature of
the evidence in question, the doctrine of benefit of doubt in favour of the accused Al to
A5 was applied. Hence the charges against the accused were not proved beyond doubt.
The accused were acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. The bail bonds executed by
Case No: 16
This case was against the accused 1 Mr. .Kannadasan, S/o Ramasamy Gounder,
The accused belonged to Hindu Kongu Velalar Community, residing at Authu village
Pollachi in Coimbatore district. They have owned land and house properties in that village. The
accused were living with their family in the same village. They were politically influencial
persons belonging to the ruling party. They were also notable persons in the village.
community. Mr.Ramkumar had family with children who were also living in the same
village. The complainant was also a member of a political party. On 18.10.2001 the local
body election was held to elect the representative for Authu Pollachi Village Panchayat
and the complainant was working as booth agent for the candidate, Mr.Udayakumar.
At about 3’O clock on the above said date the Al to A3 entered into the polling booth and
88
abused the complainant Mr.Ramkumar by calling him by his caste name and with filthy
language in public and had pulled him out of the booth and assaulted him with hands and
A2 threatened the complainant to assault by dangerous weapons and all the accused
abused him using the caste name of the complainant outside the polling booth in front of
station on 18.10.2001 against all the accused. The police registered a case on 18.10.200l
and filed per FIR with Cr.No.401/2001 against all the accused.
The case was registered by the police and the accused were charged for the
offence under section 323, 506 (ii) of IPC and under section 3(1) (x) of Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial
before the above said court on 13.06.2003. All the accused appeared before the court and
The trial of the case was conducted before the Hon'ble Court from 13.06.2003 to
17.06.2003 i.e for 4 days. There was a delay in conducting the enquiry before this
Hon'ble Court. The trial was started on 13.06.2003. There was a delay of 20 months from
the date of charge sheet. The delay was caused due to the reasons that the police authorities
have got pandobust duty and law and order problem in producing the witnesses before the
Hon'ble Court for enquiry. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-9 were marked and
witnesses Pw-I to PW-7 were examined to prove the case against the accused.
For the above reasons, the offence charged against the accused under section 323,
506 (ii) of IPC and under section 3(l)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not proved, because the incredible evidence of
89
PW-1 to PW-3 the doctrine of benefit of doubt was applied to Al to A3. So the accused
Al to A3 were acquitted under section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. in this case. Hence the charges
against the accused were not proved beyond doubt. The accused were acquitted.
Case No: 17
This case was against the accused 1. Subramania Gounder, S/o Rangasamy Gounder,
Village, Coimbatore district. They owned agricultural land and coconut grove in that
village. The accused used to keep the herd of sheep pen in his farm. The accused was
living with his family consisting of wife, children, father & mother. They were all
residing under one roof. The accused were the member of respectable family and also
about 10 a.m., she removed the said sheep pen to a distance from the original place, which
were planted by the accused. The accused No. l abused the husband of the complainant.
When the complainant Parvathy questioned it the Accused No. l got enraged of her voice and
abused her with caste name in the public and Accused No.2 also assaulted the wife of
Thirumalaisamy and abused her by caste name and insulted her at the field.
90
The complainant lodged a complaint for the occurrence in Negamam Police
station on 11.06.2001 against the accused. The police registered a case on 11.06.2001 and
The case was registered by the police and the accused were charged for the
offence under section 423 and 506(ii) of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial
before the above said court on 22.07.2003. The accused appeared before the court and
The trial of the case was held before the Hon'ble Court from 22.07.2003 to
23.07.2003 that is only for 2 days. There was a delay in conducting the enquiry for
reasons 1. Non production of witness 2. Police personnel were busy with local law and
order issues 3. Transfer of enquiry officer .The case was registered on 11.06.2001 and
the trial of case was commenced on 22.07.2003. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-8
were marked and witnesses Pw-1 to PW-8 were examined to prove the case against
the accused.
For the above reasons, the charges framed against the accused under section 423
and 506(ii) of IPC and under section 3(l)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were not proved, because of the evidence of PW-4
the doctrine of benefit of doubt was applied in favour of the accused No. l & 2 for the
said offences. So accused No 1 and 2 were acquitted under section 235 (1) of
Cr. P.C. Hence the charges against the accused were not proved beyond doubt. The bail
91
Case No: 18
This case was against the accused Mr.Prabu, S/o Mr. Mani Naidu. The accused
Kuniamuthur Village. He owned land and house properties in Kuniamuthur village and
he was also doing some small business and had his family consisting wife, children,
father &mother in the same village. The accused was a member of a respectful family in
community. Mr.Thangaraj was working in Food Corporation of India and also was an educated
person. The accused was owning lands very close to Noyyel River where the burial ground of
the scheduled community people of Kuniamuthur Village is situated. The path way leading to
burial ground was encroached by the accused and the matter was reported to the revenue
had also conducted a fast to attract the attention of the revenue authorities. Realizing the
seriousness of the problem, on 04.08.1998 at about 4 p.m. the revenue officials surveyed the
area in presence of the accused. While the survey was conducted there arose a dispute between
the accused and the complainant. The accused scolded the scheduled community people
uttering their caste name and made a derogatory speech about them.
92
The complainant lodged a complaint about the life threats of the accused in
Pothanur Police station on 07.08.1998 against the accused. The police registered a case
The case was registered by the police and the accused was charged for the offence
under section 3(1) (x) of schedule caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989. The case was taken up for trial before the above said court on 27.01.2003.
The accused appeared before the court and denied all the charges made against him.
The trial of the case was before the Hon'ble Court from 08.08.1998 to 29.01.2003.
In the above case the trial was also conducted for 2 days. In the above case, framing the
charge sheet, conducting the police enquiry was delayed and the case was registered only in
2002 as SC No.31/2002. The police were not able to produce the witnesses before the
court for a long time. The case was adjourned for about 10 to 12 times due to the non
production of witnesses, security duty, maintenance of law and order and at last the case
was taken up on 27.01.2003 for enquiry. So there was a delay in deciding the above said
case by the Hon'ble Court. In this above case the exhibits P-l & P-2 were marked and 3
In this case the charges were framed against the accused under section 3(l)(x) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The above
charges were not proved against the accused because the witnesses 1 and 2 were turned
hostile. Hence the charges against the accused were not proved beyond doubt.
So the accused was acquitted under section 235 Cr. P.C. as not guilty of the offence
under section 3(I)(x) of the Act. The bail bond executed by him was also cancelled.
93
Case No: 19
This case was against the accused Mr.Arukutty @ Aruchamy, S./o Mr.Nachimuthu
Velliampalayam. He owned land and house properties in the village and he had a family
consisting of wife, children, father & mother. They were residing under one roof.
The accused was the member of respectable family in his village. He was an agriculturist
Mr.Kittan was an agricultural daily wage earner working on land. He had his family and
children in the same village. The accused and his brothers Rathinasamy and Natarajan
owned a common well situated at Velliampalayam Village, in which the electric motor in
the well had broken down and on 17.03.2002 at about 6 p.m. the accused picked up
quarrel with his elder brother Rathinasamy and had caused damages to the switch board
of the said motor pump set. At that time the said complainant Kittan who was working in
the field of Rajendran adjacent to the common well belonging to the accused came there and
enquired about the quarrel. The accused picked up quarrel with him also and abused him
with his caste name and assaulted on his back with chappal and threatened him with dire
94
The complainant lodged a complaint against the accused in Gudimangalam Police
station on 18.03.2002. The police registered a case and filed FIR with Cr.No.45/2002
against the accused. The case was registered by the police officials and the accused was
charged for the offence under section 355 of IPC and 506(ii) and under section 3(1 )(x) of
Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. The case was
taken up for trial before the above said court on 01.08.2003. The accused appeared before
the court and denied the charges made out against him.
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 17.03.2002 to
04.08.2003. In the above case the trial was conducted only for 3 days. In the above case
the complainant had not appeared before the court and all the witnesses 1 to 8 were
examined with regard to the offence lodged against the accused. Due to some law and
order problem and pandobust duties, the witnesses were not produced before the Court
for enquiry and hence there was a delay in conducting the enquiry. In the above case the
exhibits P-l to P-6 were marked to prove the case against the accused.
In this case the charges were framed against the accused under section 355 of IPC
and 506(ii) and under section 3(l)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention
In the above case the trial was conducted by examining the witnesses and marked
the exhibits, the case against the accused was not proved by the prosecution because the
complainant Kittan himself was not consistent and stable in his stand the doctrine of
benefit of doubt was applied in favour of the accused and hence the in this case. So the
accused was acquitted under section 235(1) Cr. P.C. as the charges against the accused
was not proved beyond doubt. The bail bonds executed by him were also cancelled.
95
Case No: 20
This case was against the accused Mr.Manikandan, S/o Mr.Chinnappa Gounder.
Coimbatore district. He owned land and house properties in the said village and he was
living with his family consisting of wife, children, father and mother. They were all
residing under one roof. The accused was the member of respectable family in his village.
to the house of Sakthivelu. They were agricultural daily wage earners doing work as
farm workers. They lived with their family in the same village. On 23.05.1998 at about
1.30 p.m., the accused came in front of the residence of Sakthivelu. The accused scolded
the complainant Murugan with abusive language using the caste name in a derogatory
manner in the public place and assaulted Sakthivelu and pushed him down causing
simple injuries. The complainants lodged a complaint about the unlawful activities of the
accused before Dhali Police station on 23.05.1998 against the accused. The police had
registered a case and filed FIR with Cr.No.58/1998 against the accused.
The case was registered by the police officials and the accused was charged for
the offence under section 323 of IPC and under section 3(1 )(x) of Schedule Caste and
96
Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial
before the above said court on 05.02,2001. The accused appeared before the court and
The trial of the case was pending before the Hon'ble Court from 23.05.1998 to
08.02.2001. In the above case the trial was conducted only for 3 days. In the above case
witnesses 1 to 8 were examined with regard to the offence lodged against the accused.
Due to some law and order problem and pandobust duties and also due to transfer of
higher officials and Tahsildar, the witnesses were not present before the Court for
enquiry. So there was a delay in conducting the enquiry in the above said case by the
Hon'ble court. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-7 were marked to prove the case
In this case the charges were framed against the accused under section
323 of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention
In the above case the trial was conducted by examining the witnesses and marking
the exhibits. The charge against the accused was not proved by the prosecution side.
So the accused was acquitted from the charges made out against him beyond all
reasonable doubts and therefore the accused was released as he was not guilty. The bail
97
Case No: 21
He owned land and house properties in the village and he was living with his family
consisting of wife, children, father and mother. They were residing under one roof.
The accused was the member of respectable family in his village. He was an agriculturist
caste which belonged to SC community. They were agricultural coolies working as farm
public transport bus (route No. 10A). The accused also boarded the same bus and when
they saw the complainants were sitting in the seat, the accused started scolding the
complainants in a filthy language and abused them by using the caste name in a
derogatory manner in public. The complainants lodged a complaint about the threat by
the accused in Udumalpet Police station on 26.02,1997. The police registered a case and
The case was registered by the police officials and the accused was charged for the
offence under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial before the above said court on 02.04.2001. The
accused appeared before the court and denied the charges made out against him.
98
The trial of the case was held before the Hon'ble Court from 02.04.2001 to
04.04.2001i.e for two days. In the above case witnesses 1 to 7 were examined, Due to
some law and order problem and also transfer of enquiry officers and Tahsildar, and the
witnesses were not produced before the Court for enquiry and hence there was a delay in
conducting the enquiry. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-7 were marked to prove
In this case the charges were framed against the accused under section 3(1)(x) of
The trial was conducted by examining the witnesses and marking the exhibits, the
case against the accused was dismissed by the prosecution side and the charges against the
accused were dismissed. So the accused was acquitted from the charges framed against him
under section 235(1) of Cr. P.C. The bail bond executed by him was also cancelled.
Case No: 22
resident of Thekku Thottam, C. Nagar, Udumalpet. He owned land and house properties
in the said village and he was living with family consisting wife, children, father and
mother. They were residing under one roof. The accused was a member of respectable
family in his village. He was a land lord and economically well to do person.
99
The complainant Mr. M. Murugan belonged to Arunthathiar caste which is a
On 05.08.2002 the accused insulted the complainant M. Murugan and tried to assault him
with footwear. Again on 08.08.2002 at about 4 pm when the complainant was at his
residence the accused called the complainant to his farm and at that time the complainant
asked the accused about his unruly behavior on 05.09.2002. The accused suddenly
abused the complainant and intentionally insulted him by calling him with his caste
name in public and tried to assault him with stone. The complainant went to Negamam
Police station and lodged a complaint on 02.09.2002 against the accused. The police
registered a case and filed FIR with Cr.No.230/2002 against the accused.
The case was registered by the police officials and the accused was charged for
the offences under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial before the above said court on
06.11.2003. The accused appeared before the court and denied all the charges made
against him.
The trial of the case was held before the Hon'ble Court from 06.11.2003 to
27.11.2003. In the above case the trial was conducted for about 21 days. In the above
case witnesses 1 to 4 were examined, Due to some law and order problem and also
transfer of enquiry officers and Tahsildar, the witnesses were not produced before the
Court for enquiry, there was a delay in conducting the enquiry. So there was a delay in
deciding the above said case by the Hon'ble court. In the above case the exhibits P-l to
100
In this case the charges were framed against the accused under section 3(l)(x) of
The trial was conducted by examining the witnesses and marked the exhibits, the
case against the accused was dismissed by the prosecution side and the charges against
the accused was not proved. So the accused was acquitted from the charges made against
him under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. The bail bond executed by him was also cancelled.
Case No: 23
This case was against the accused l. Sakthivel S/o Krishnasamy, 2. Boopalan,
S/o Krishnasamy. The accused belonged to Backward Community. They were blood
brothers. They owned land and house properties in the village. The accused were the
members of a respectable family in that village. They are agriculturists and well
to do persons.
community. She was the president of Eripatti village Panchayat. She was living with her
wanted to meet the Collector to complaint him about water scarcity and to request him to
take action regarding the water scarcity. On 30.09.2002 at 2 a.m. the accused Al and A2
abused the complainant with filthy language using her caste name in public and
101
threatened her with dire consequences at her house. The complainant went to Negamam
Police station and lodged a complaint on 01.10.2002 against the accused. The police
registered a case and filed FIR with Cr.No.247/2002 as against the accused.
The case was registered by the police officials and the accused were charged for
the offences under section 506(ii) of IPC and under section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste
and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial
before the above said court on 18.03.2004. The accused appeared before the court and
The trial of the case was held before the Hon'ble Court from 18.03.2004 to
22.03.2004. In the above case the trial was conducted for about 4 days. In the above case
witnesses 1 to 5 were examined with regard to the offence lodged against the accused.
Due to some law and order problem and also due to the transfer of enquiry officers and
Tahsildar and as the witnesses were not produced before the Court for enquiry, there was
a delay in conducting the enquiry and hence there was a delay in deciding the above said
case by the Hon'ble court. In the above case the exhibits P-l to P-7 were marked to prove
The charges were framed against the accused 506(ii) of IPC and under section
3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The trial of this case was conducted by examining the witnesses and marked the
exhibits, the case against the accused was not proved by the prosecution side and the
charges against the accused was dismissed, so the accused were acquitted from the
charges made against them. The bail bonds executed by them were also cancelled.
102
Case No: 24
This case was against the accused Kumar, S/o Paramasivam. The accused belonged
to Hindu Boyar Community. He was a well known person in the locality and was doing
seasonal business with agricultural produce. He owned land and house properties in the
Panchayat pigs and stray dogs created nuisance and therefore steps were taken to check
and control them. The accused is also rearing pigs, and pet dogs. On 05.02.2011 at about
4 p.m. the complainant was standing near the Muniappan Temple along with his son
Murugan. The accused came there and scolded him in filthy language .Palani slapped on
his right cheek. This incident was witnessed by three persons standing at the venue.
The complainant immediately went to Dhali Police station and lodged a complaint on the
same day against the accused. The police registered a case and filed FIR with
The case was registered by the police officials and the accused was charged for
the offence under section 323 and under section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken up for trial before the
above said court on 03.12.2002. The accused appeared before the court and denied the
103
The trial of the case was held before the Hon'ble Court from 03.12.2002 to
04.12.2002. In the above case the trial was conducted for about 2 days. In this case
witnesses 1 to 11 were examined with regard to the offence lodged against the accused.
Due to law and order issues due to transfer of enquiry officers and pandobust duties and
also due to failure of police officials to produce the witnesses before the Court for
enquiry, there was a delay in conducting the enquiry and hence there was a delay in
deciding the above said case by the Hon'ble court. In the above case the exhibits P-l to
In this case the charges were framed against the accused under section 323 and
under section 3(I)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989.
The trial was conducted by examining the witnesses and marked the exhibits, the
case against the accused was not proved by the prosecution side and the charges against
the accused was dismissed. So the accused was acquitted from the charges made against
104
Case No: 25
Occurrence Date : 09.03.1998 at about 09.00 a.m. Near Bus stand, Sorathur village
This case was lodged against the accused Aathimoola Gounder and one other .
Arunthathiar, which is a SC community. The accused No.1 was the president of the
Sorathur Panchayat Board. On 09.03.1998 at about 09.00 a.m., when P.W1 was waiting for
the bus at the bus stand, P.W2, owner of the nearby tea stall asked the PW1 whether he has
completed the construction of the bus stand . The PW1 replied that accused 1 had obtained
stay order from the court and therefore he was not able to complete the construction of the
bus stand. At that time A1 came there and indulged in derogatory speech using the
community name of PW1 and told that he would beat with slippers. The P.W1 went to the
F.I.R and visited the place of the occurrence on 10.03.1998 at about 03.00 p.m. and a
case was filed against the accused A1 & A2 and arrested the accused and were charged
under section 3 (1)(x) of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (prevention of
atrocities) Act, 1989 . After the trial by this Special Judge the accused were punished
under section3 (1)(x) of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (prevention of
105
atrocities) Act, 1989 dated 31.05.1998. The accused were found guilty under section
3 (1)(x) of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe (prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989
Both the accused preferred appeal against the sentence imposed on them by the
special judge Villupuram, before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras , under
section 193 and 274 of Criminal Procedure code. The Hon’ble High Court observed the
above case and appreciation of the evidence in order to corroborate the version of PW1,
the prosecution examined PWs 2 & 3 but PW2 has turned hostile and he had not
supported the version of PW1 and PW3 was the only witness corroborated with the
version of PW1 . PW3 had stated that he had also accompanied P.W 1 and both of them
were waiting for the bus on the said date of occurrence at 10 a.m. and only at that time.
The accused 1 and2 had abused P.W.1 by using his caste name. But P.W.1 was silent and
did not utter any word about P.W.3’s presence at that time – as it was through that P.W.3
could be believed. The version of P.W.1 remained uncorroborated. It was not safe to
place reliance on such uncorroborated testimony of P.W.1 coupled with his conduct of
not reporting the incident to the police immediately and also not coming forward with
any reasonable explanation for the inordinate delay in giving report Ex.P1 to PW6 Sub-
Inspector of Police . Accused 1 & 2 without being by the Magistrate the learned Special
Judge had taken Cognizance of the case which was against the procedure contemplated
under section 193 Cr. P.C and there by the entire proceeding are vitiated. The conviction
and sentence imposed by the judgment dated 09.11.1998 passed by the Special Judge
106
The Learned Judge of High Court after perusal of the evidence of PW 1 and 3
and also material records and F.I.R charge sheet stated that the special judge ought to
have taken cognizance of the case only on the order of committed passed by the
Magistrate , but in the case without any order of committal , the investigating officer had
filed the final report before the learned special judge and the same was taken cognizance
of by the learned special Judge, which was in violation of the procedure contemplated
under section 193 of Cr. P.C. And also the learned judge of High Court in his judgement
clearly established that, the occurrence took place on 09.03.1998 at 09.00 a.m. But the
accused has not chosen to complain immediately on the date of occurrence and complaint
was given on 10.03.1998 to the Chengee Police station with inordinate delay. Further
there was no explanation given by the accused for lodging the complaint with regard to
the occurrence. Hence the PW3 could not be believed the version of P.W.1 which
remained uncorroborated. The learned judge considered the view that it was not safe to
And in the above circumstances the learned Judge of High Court allowed the
appeal and set aside the judgment of the special judge, Villupuram. Also the Hon’ble
High court ordered that bail bonds if any executed by the accused should stand cancelled
and the fine amount paid if any should be refunded to the accused/appellant.
107
Case No: 26
The case against the accused Dr. M. Sarvothaman was that he had abused the
appellant/ complainant V.P. Lakshmi calling her by her caste name and also ordered her
to get out of the room by saying that she being a lower caste woman cannot speak to a
person hailing from a higher caste. The case was registered against the accused under
section 7 (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. In that case, PW1 V.P. Lakshmi
and 2 other witnesses were examined. The trail Magistrate acquitted the respondent/
accused on several grounds and one of them was that the complaint is barred by
limitation.
In view of the judgement of the Trial Court the accused/ appellant filed the
Appeal No. 396/95 before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras against the
judgement of the Magistrate. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras admitted the
appeal and passed the judgement and justified the acquittal of the accused on the ground of
limitation and also stated that the maximum punishment contemplated for the offence under
section 7 (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act was 6 months imprisonment and if so,
the complaint oughtto have been filed within one year from the date of incident in term of
section 468 (2) (b) Cr. P.C. But the complaint was laid after 5 years, hence it was barred by
limitation.
108
The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras on going through the evidence
of learned Magistrate on the above aspect found that the complaint was barred by
limitation. The explanation given by the appellant was not satisfactory and established.
The acquittal of the respondent/accused was therefore, justified and the appeal was
dismissed.
Case No. 27
field and PWs 2, 3 & 4 and one Murugan was working in the field of PW1. PW1 was
standing on the edge of the field. At that time, the accused came there and abused PW1
with filthy language mentioning about his caste. PW1 felt humiliated at the act of the
accused. The PW1 lodged a complaint before the Protection of Civil Rights Police
Station on 25.05.1998 at 2 p.m. The Police registered the case in Cr. No. 4 of 1998 for
the offence under section 3 (1)(X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case
was registered by the Police and on completion of the investigation on 14.10.1998 the
The Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai, had taken up the trial of the case
and PWs 1 to 7 were examined and exhibits P1 to P5 were marked. The accused did not
examine any witness on his side. The accused was questioned under section 3 (1) (X) of
109
SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, incriminating circumstances appeared in the
evidence of the prosecution witness. The accused denied the offence. On consideration
of the evidence of witnesses and documentary evidence the learned Principal Sessions
Judge, Thiruavannamalai, came to the conclusion that the offence alleged against the
accused under section 3 (1) (X) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is proved and
therefore convicted the accused with 3 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of
Rs. 1,000/- , in default, 6 months rigorous imprisonment. The accused Sivalingam preferred
an appeal against the judgement before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras
The appeal was heard by the High Court of Judicature and decided that the section
193 of the Code has to be understood in the aforesaid backdrop. The section imposes in
interdict on all courts of sessions against taking cognizance of any offence as a court of
original jurisdiction. It can take cognizance only if the case has been committed to it by a
Magistrate as provided in the Code. In the above case not committed by the Magistrate
and the Principal Sessions Court directly took the case for trial is not maintainable.
Hence the High Court passed the judgment that in view of the law enunciated by the
Supreme Court the cognizance taken by the learned Sessions Judge and the subsequent
trail are vitiated. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained and it
has to be set aside, since the learned Sessions Judge acted without jurisdiction on account
conviction of the appellant under section 324 of IPC was set aside. “In the absence of
committal the entire proceedings of the Sessions Judge was invalid. Hence the appeal was
110
Case No. 28
1989 r/w provisions of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1965 and the relevant provisions of
Indian Penal Code for various offences allegedly committed by the accused persons.
The respondent in this case filed counter affidavit denying the allegations made in
the Writ Petition and in the complaint. The accused person has not denied that the
complaint has not been formally registered. The complainant with regard to the occurrence
register the case under Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1995 contemplates
the recording of the FIR Sub Rule (3) to Rule 5. The officer in charge of police station
refused to record the information and frame the FIR against the accused.
The complainant filed the above Writ Petition for necessary relief. The Hon’ble
High Court registered the case and enquired both the parties and passed the order that all
the belongings of the petitioner as listed in the Magazar now in the safe custody of the
Tahsildar, Rajapalayam, should be returned, since the respondent do not claim any
ownership over those articles. Therefore, in the interest of justice the Hon’ble High Court
directed that the belongings listed in the Magazar and in the custody of the Tahsildar,
111
Rajapalayam, should be returned to the petitioner within a period of 2 months from the
date of communication of this order. In the above direction the Writ Petition is disposed
Case No. 29
On the basis of the opinion dated 13.11.2002 given by the Director of Prosecution,
Virudhunagar and submitted before the court that during the meeting the petitioner is alleged
to have informed that the 1st respondent of the mandatory provisions of the Schedule Caste
and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 followed by which he submitted
an explanatory letter dated 13.11.2002 by registered post. But in spite of receipt of the said
letter on 14.11.2002 the 1st respondent did not consider anything stated therein and filed the
Final Report accompanied by the Legal Opinion of the Assistant Director of Prosecution
before the Magistrate to the effect that the petitioner’s complaint did not disclose or satisfy
the ingredients of the offences alleged against the 4th respondent and therefore no
investigation was necessary, based on which the Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, passed an
order on 18.11.2002 stating that the petitioner’s complaint in Crl MP No. 4936 of 2002
should be rejected. Against the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi, the petitioner
K.P.S. Sathyamurthy filed the revision in Crl OP No. 818/2003 alleging that the Judicial
112
The petitioner contends that the 1st respondent has no statutory right or power or
authority to investigate the complaint for alleged offence under the S.C. and S.T.
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act as per the Rule 5 of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)
Rules 1995 that for the alleged offence under the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act along with the other offences, the investigation could be carried out by the
1st respondent in view of the statutory prescription under Rule 7 of the said Rules. Further, as
per the Rule 7 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules
1995, the Inspector of Police has no power or jurisdiction to investigate the matter arising
out of Act 33 of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) 1989 and
that the investigation should be done by an Officer not below the rank of Deputy
Superintendent of Police, whether the allegations are true or otherwise and giving
expression to the legality of Rule 7 of the said Rules, Sections 157 (1) (b) and 157 (2) of
the Cr. P.C and Sections 3 of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The above revision was argued by both sides and the High Court has passed a
judegment, all these sections could be brought into play only when factually a case is
made out on the basis of the complaint particularly in the case in hand pertaining to the
statement alleged to have been made by the 4th respondent. This statement is alleged to
have been published in Thina Thantihi and Dina Malar, Tamil Dailies, but the petitioner
has not even made the editors and the publishers of these newspapers as parties to the
proceedings, who ought to have been impleaded as parties to the proceedings if the
statement is objectionable, since the newspapers are not supported to carry out such
From the very fact, that the petitioner has not impleaded those persons as parties to the
113
proceedings would not only mean that they are not objectionable statement, but also the
petitioner with some ill motivated designs and at the instigation of those who have some
basic grievances or hatred or ill will or motive against the 4th respondent has come
forward to initiate these proceedings. Therefore, besides being the petitioner not having
the basic standee to question the validity of such paper publication taking it as genuine
and made with intent to injure the religious and caste feelings, absolutely no case worth
to be considered under the relevant Sections of law has been put by the petitioner and
therefore, this court is left with no choice but to arrive at the only resistible conclusion
that no valid case has been put up by petitioner nor if there was any pith or substance in
the averments of the petition worth considering by any purpose, much less warranting,
granting of the relief sought for and it could be satisfied concluded that the court below
has done nothing than what is required in the circumstances of the case in rejecting the
complaint filed by the petitioner by its order dated 18.11.2002. Needless to mention that
The Crl.OP was dismissed and consequently, the alternative relief of the
petitioner for fresh investigation in respect of the petitioner’s complaint dated 28.10.2002
also did not arise at all and the same was also dismissed.
114
Case No. 30
In the above case, the complainant Soundararajan lodged a complaint against the
accused Sambasivam and others before the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannargudi.
The case was registered in Cr No. 11/1996 under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the Schedule
Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The accused are residing as
tenants in the house belonging to his father-in-law. It is also an admitted fact by PW1
(Soundararajan) that an eviction proceeding has been initiated against the 1st accused to
evict him from the premises in RCOP No. 5 of 1995. It is also the case of PW1 the
accused requested to sell the house where they are residing for which they refused,
resulting strained relationship. The above said case is pending before the civil court.
Thus it seems that there is strong motive of PW1 to foist a false case against the accused
which is unfortunately taken otherwise by the trial court, as if the accused should have
scolded the PW1 using the caste name, the occurrence took place. The occurrence took
The PW1 preferred the complaint on 23.07.1996 before the police station concerned
and the complaint was received at 10 a.m. In the complaint there is no endorsement
which is made available usually, about the time of receipt of the complaint. The complaint
and the FIR were sent to the court concerned on 25.07.1996 at about 11.30 a.m. with
inordinate delay. The delay was not only registering the case but also submitting the
115
complaint and submitting the FIR before the court concerned. No proper explanation was
given for the delay. The delay took place on account of some enmity. The trial court on
perusing the records and evidence of PWs and DWs concluded that the third accused was
not at all present at the alleged incident in the village itself. Hence, the court acquitted
the third accused because he was not at all present at the occurrence spot. The learned
judge in his observation that the doubt should arise regarding the case of the prosecution,
In the above case, the Hon’ble Sessions Judge after perusing the documents and
evidence of PWs sentenced the accused 1 & 2 to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a
period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo further rigorous
imprisonment for 3 months each. The 3rd accused was acquitted. The accused 1 &
2 namely Sambasivam and another preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by
the II Additional Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, before the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature
In the above said criminal appeal the Hon’ble High Court perusing all the records
and hearing the arguments of appellant’s Counsel and prosecution side, observed that in
the above case admittedly PW10 has not been appointed by the State Government or by
any person authorized by the State Government, taking into account his experience, sense
of ability, justice to perceive the implications of the case and therefore, the formal role
said to have been played by him, fails to attract Rule 7, thereby the court should say
violation caused prejudice to the accused, as ruled in the above decision and therefore,
the entire proceedings has to be held as violated, resulting the appellants A1 and A2 are
116
entitled to an acquittal. Unfortunately, the trial court not analyzing the case properly and
taking into account the effect of Rule 7 and its purpose, placing reliance upon circular which
is also not available and forgetting the fact that the circular cannot override the mandatory
provisions of Rule, which is having statutory power and in the circular also PW10 has not
been appointed by name, convicted the appellants A1 and A2 while acquitting the A3 on the
same evidence, it is not legally sound, manifested against the provisions and therefore the
In the result, the appeal was allowed. The conviction and the sentence imposed
on the appellant/accused in Sessions Case No. 105/ 1998 by the learned II Additional
Sessions Judge (Prosecution of Civil Rights), Thanjavur, dated 24.08.1999 were set aside.
The appellants A1 & A2 were found not guilty of the offences charged and accordingly
they were acquitted. The fine amount if any paid by the appellants/ A1 & A2 should be
refunded to them. The bail bond of appellants 1 and 2 shall stood discharged.
Case No. 31
It was submitted that on 14.01.2008 when Thiru. Narendra Modi, Chief Minister
of Gujarath made a visit to Chennai, for the law and order problem on 12.01.2008 at
about 9.30 p.m., Thoufeek and Vetriveera Pandian were arrested under Section
151 Cr. P.C r/w 7 (1) (a) of Criminal law Amendment Act along with other remanded to
117
The Gujarath Chief Minister on completion of his visit to Chennai, safely returned back
to Gujarath on 14.01.2008. The above said arrested persons were not able to present their
bail application before 21.01.2008, since the courts had been closed for Pongal holidays
Crl.MP No. 146/2008 on the file of VII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai.
The learned Magistrate without taking up the bail petitions for disposal re-posted the bail
petition to 24.01.2008. The petitioners’ Counsel made representation for disposal of the
petition was filed before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.OP No. 1257/2008
under Section 482 of Cr.PC invoking the inherent powers of the High Court for necessary
direction for the early disposal of the bail petition. On 22.01.2008 the Principal Sessions
Judge Court Chennai directed the VII Metropolitan Magistrate, to advance the hearing of
Crl.MP No. 146/2008 to 23.01.2008 and dispose of the same on the same day.
The Magistrate after hearing the bail petition dismissed the bail petition. Thereafter, they
moved before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, under Section 439 of Cr.PC by filing
a bail petition Crl.MP No. 709/2008 on 24.01.2008. The learned Principal Sessions
Judge passed an order on 25.01.2008 in the said petition and released the above said
On the basis of the bail order, on 28.01.2008 at about 10.30 a.m. the 2nd petitioner
Mrs.S.Sengodi who was the Counsel on record for the petitioners in the bail application
Crl.MP No. 709/2008 on the file of learned Sessions Judge Chennai presented those
papers for acceptance. It seems that there were some scuffle between the 2nd petitioner
and the learned VII Metropolitan Magistrate pursuant to the insistence on the presence of
118
the petitioners namely the 1st petitioner herein. At about 4.30 p.m. the 1st petitioner
Rajanikanth, who had been engaged in the High Court in the other matters, went to the
court of the VII Metropolitan Magistrate. Pursuant to some kind of exchange of words
between the Advocates including the 1st and 2nd petitioners herein and the learned VII
Metropolitan Magistrate, the 2nd respondent who was the then VII Metropolitan
Magistrate lodged a complaint with B-1 North Beach Police Station on 30.01.2008.
On 28.01.2008 at 4.30 p.m. while the Judicial Magistrate on the dais conducting
judicial proceedings, one Rajanikanth, Advocate, Madras High Court Bar Association
along with one lady Sengodi who was also an Advocate practicing at Madras High Court
along with 40 to 50 persons entered the court hall and threatened the Magistrate that he
was going to file private complaint against the Magistrate under SC/ST Act and PCR Act
and used filthy and unparliamentary words as well as he called the Magistrate in ‘Tamil’.
They disturbed the court work. The Advocates who were present before the court have
taken him away. Hence, the Magistrate lodged a complaint to take action against the
above said 2 Advocates Rajanikanth and Sengodi. On the basis of the complaint the
police officials registered a case in Cr No. 80/2008 for the offences under Section 294
(b), 353, 506 (ii) IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act.
Against the FIR the petitioners S.Rajanikanth and Sengodi filed the above Crl.OP
No. 4002/2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras to quash the FIR.
The Crl.OP was taken on file and the High Court passed a judgement after perusing all
the records and opinion of the Advocates. The entire episode seems to have occurred
due to the impertinence on the part of the Judicial Officer, who unnecessarily insisted
upon the presence of the 1st petitioner for scrutiny of the surety papers, when they were
119
presented by the 2nd petitioner who was also a Counsel on record for the accused on
whose behalf the surety papers were produced. Had the Judicial Officer acted fairly and
judiciously, the undesirable occurrence would not have happened. At the same time, this
court also warns to make a clear that the Advocates cannot take it for granted and cause
words or by causing a threat simply because the Judicial Officer passes a wrong order or
commits any act which is not expected of the Judicial Officer. In such cases, the
aggrieved party or the Advocate shall approach the higher forum for judicial remedy or
the administrative head of the judicial department either of the District or State Redressal
of their grievance regarding the conduct of the Judicial Officer, if any preferred to omit
to follow the said procedure and take the law in their own hands by confronting the
Judicial Officer and causing insult or threat to the Judicial Officer, whatsoever be the
reason for the provocation, they will nevertheless be held liable for the penal
consequences of such act. With the above observation cautioning persons inclined to
confront the Judicial Officers, this Crl.OP was disposed of with the following result.
For all the reasons stated above the Crl.OP was allowed and the Criminal
proceedings instituted in Cr No. 80/2008 against the petitioners herein was quashed.
120
Case No. 32
The case against the accused was on 20.09.1996 in the evening, at the time Town
Bank Auditorium, Thalassery, E. Krishna Nayanar the accused No. 1 made a speech
the fact that the complainant belongs to a lower and inferior category of MLA being a
member of the Scheduled Caste, Accused No. 1 emphasized the fact that the appellant
was a Harijan and made derogatory remarks about the complainant. This was done in full
view of the public assembled in the auditorium. The accused No. 1 stated that the
MLA Kuttappan is a Harijan, he climbed over the table and was dancing. On the above
reasons the complainant lodged a complaint before the Special Judge of Thalassery under
Section 3(1) (x) of the 1989 Act under Section (7) (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights
Act and the court took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued process
In the above case, the accused No. 1 Counsel submitted the argument that the
Court of the Special Judge constituted under 1989 Act had no jurisdiction to entertain the
complaint take cognizance and issue process against the accused No. 1. The Special
Judge in accordance with the procedures laid down under the code of criminal procedure,
121
unless an order of committal was made by a competent Magistrate committing the
accused to stand trial before the court of Sessions, the Sessions Judge had no jurisdiction
Against the judgement of Special Judge, framed a charge against the appellant
was challenged before the High Court. The High Court found that the procedure adopted
by the Investigating Officer in filing the charge sheet before the Special Court was not in
accordance with law and the Special Judge had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of any
offence under this Act, without the case having been committed to that court. In the
above aspects the High Court set aside the proceedings of the Special Court and directed,
the charge sheet and the connected papers to be returned to the Police Officers concerned
to present the same before the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class for the purpose of
The appellants against the judgement of the High Court preferred Crl Appeal
No. 450/1997 on the file of Supreme Court of India. There the case was decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon the judgement of High Court and held that utterance
imputed to respondent No. 1 did not attract the provisions of Section 7 (1) (d) of the
Protection of Civil Rights Act. To attract the said provisions it had to be shown that the
words so uttered had the effect of insulting the appellant on the ground of untouchability
which is not the case of the accused. There was no jurisdiction for the submissions that
the words allegedly uttered by the accused No. 1, encouraged his audience to practice
untouchability or the accused No. 1 practiced untouchability. The appellant was neither
provisions of Section 7 (1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act are not attracted.
122
In the above said observation the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the appeal
and advised to file a complaint before a competent Magistrate who shall consider the
complaint on its merits and then proceed in accordance with law. The learned Special
Court as well as the High Court has made certain observation touching on the merit of the
controversy. And it was clear that in case of complaint filed by the appellant before the
competent Magistrate, he shall proceed to consider the matter in accordance with law
uninfluenced by any observation made either by the learned Special Judge or by the High
Court nothing said in this judgement also shall be construed as expression of opinion on
Case No. 33
In the above case on 13.05.1994 at about 5 p.m. when the complainant Nandabai
was at her house, the 4 accused went to her house and asked why she had illicit relations
with Vikram and started beating her with fists and kicks. At the time, the accused Kailas
and Balu held her hands while accused Subabai @ Subhadra removed her saree.
The accused Subhash then removed her petticoat and accused Subabai tore the blouse and
brassier of the complainant Nandabai. Thereafter the accused Subabai and Balu paraded
the complainant Nandabai on the road on the village and at that time the 4 accused were
123
On the complaint made by the complainant at about 8.40 p.m. FIR was filed` at
Paluka Police Station and after investigation a charge sheet was filed. The case was tried
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahamed Nagar and convicted on 05.02.1998
under Section 452, 354, 323, 506 (ii) r/w Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer R.I. for
1 year and pay a fine of Rs. 100/- . Further they were also sentenced to suffer R.I. for
1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence punishable under Section 354/34 IPC.
They were also sentenced under Sections 323/34 IPC and sentenced to 3 months R.I. and
to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-. And also they were convicted under Section 3 of the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to suffer
The appellants against the conviction preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble High
Court to modify the conviction and sentence. In the Hon’ble High Court the appellants
were acquitted of the offence under Sections 3 of the SC/ST Act. But the conviction
under the provisions of IPC was confirmed and the part of the order regarding the
payment of fine was set aside and each of the appellant directed to pay a fine of
Against the judgment passed by the Hon’ble High Court, the appellants preferred
a criminal appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court appeal No. 11/2010. On perusal of
the entire records and evidence adduced by the Public Prosecutor, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court did not find anything to interfere with the judgement passed by the Hon’ble High
124
Case No. 34
In the above case the complainant Rajbir Singh lodged a complaint before the
Police Station, New Agra, alleging that a day before some brickbats were thrown in the
compound of his brother’s house from the house of his neighbour Ramraj Rathore.
On account of this incident exchange of hot words took place between his father Hotilal
and accused Ramraj Rathore. But the matter was falsified due to intervention of some
persons at the locality. At about 4 p.m. on 29.09.2003 Ramraj Rathore and his relations
Jeetendra Singh and Prem Narain who were armed with firearms came near the shop of
the complainant where his father was standing and all of them exhorted that Hotilal
should be killed. Ramraj Rathore started firing towards Hotilal who after receiving injury
fell down. Pooja Balmiki, a girl belonging to the Schedule Caste Community who had
come to purchase some articles from the shop also sustained firearm injuries and fell
down. Both the injured were taken to the Hospital, but they died on the way.
The accused continued to fire from their weapons and tried to kill the complainant and
his family members as well. On account of the firing resorted by the accused a feeling of
terror spread and people started running towards their houses. The complainant Rajbir Singh
lodged a complaint on 29.09.2003 at about 5.10 p.m. before the Police Station New Agra.
125
On the basis of the complaint FIR was lodged against the accused under Section 302 IPC
and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of
The trial court framed charges against the accused 2 under Section 302 r/w
Section 34 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The case was registered before the Magistrate concerned and the same was committed to
the Court of Sessions the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act). The learned Special
Judge order dated 11.05.2004 framed charges under Sections 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and
Section 3 (2) (v) of the SC/ST Act against the Akhiles Chauhan. The appellant filed a
criminal revision under Sections 397 and 401 Cr. P.C before the Hon’ble High Court
challenging the order by which charges had been framed against him.
The Hon’ble High Court after perusing the records and hearing the arguments of
both sides very briefly ordered on 09.07.2004 to set aside the order passed by the learned
Special Judge. The appellants against the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court filed
the appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to set aside the judgement in Criminal
Appeal No. 303/2006 under Sections 227, 228 (1) (b) and 397/401 to discharge the
On perusing the entire records and arguments the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed
the appeal and set aside the order dated 09.07.2004 passed by the Hon’ble High Court.
And also passed an order directing the learned Special Judge (The SC/ST Act), Agra
before whom the trail of the other co-accused of the case is pending, to proceed against
the accused 2 after framing appropriate charges and try him in accordance with law. It is
made clear that any observation made in this order is only for the limited purpose of
126
deciding the appeal and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of
the case. The learned Special Judge shall decide the case strictly on the basis of the
Case No. 35
In the above case, the complainant lodged a complaint before the Newasa Police
Station, District Ahamed Nagar, under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
1973, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Schedule
Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989. On the complaint the
Police registered the FIR. The accused preferred a petition under Section 482 of
Criminal Procedure Code before the Hon’ble High Court to quash the FIR. The Hon’ble
The appellant filed the petition under Section 482 to quash the FIR on the ground
that caste of the accused was not mentioned in FIR for offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of
Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petition
Against the order of the Hon’ble High Court, the appellant preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 287/2009 to set aside the order of the Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court observed that the powers possessed by the High Court under Section 482
(of the code) are very wide and the very plenitude of the powers required great caution in
127
its exercise. The court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is
based on sound principles. The inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a
legitimate prosecution. The High Court being the highest court of a state should normally
refrain from giving a prima facie decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete
and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the
court and the issues involved, whether factual or legal, or of magnitude under cannot be
seen in their true perspective without sufficient material. Of course, no hard- and – fast
rule can be laid down in regard to cases in which the High Court will exercise its
Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it needs no reiteration that the
Caste or Schedule Tribe can be gone into when the matter is being investigated. It is to
be noted that under Section 23 (1) of the Act, the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 have been framed. Rule 7 deals with the Investigating
Officer. Under Rule 7 investigation has to be done by an officer not below the rank of
Investigating Officer to record that the accused either belongs to or does not belong to
Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. Even if the charge sheet is filed at the time of
consideration of the charge, it is open to the accused to bring to the notice of the court
that the materials do not show that the accused does not belong to Schedule Caste or
Schedule Tribe. Even if charge is framed at the time of trial materials can be placed to show
that the accused either belongs or does not belong to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe.
128
The Hon’ble Supreme Court passed an order on 12.02.2009 considering the above
aspect and allowed the appeal. Needless to say during the investigation or at the time of
framing the charge or at the time of trial it was open to the respondent 3 to show that he
either belongs to Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe so that the applicability of Section
According to the 2011 census, 19% of the people in the state belong to Scheduled
Castes and 1.04%, Scheduled Tribes. The state of Tamil Nadu has the fifth largest
Dalit population in the country. Dalits and indigenous peoples continue to face
discrimination, exclusion, and acts of communal violence. Laws and policies adopted by
the Indian government provide a strong basis for protection, but are not being faithfully
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, commonly known as POA Act, recognizes rape and
Tamil Nadu ranks eighth among the states in the number of attacks on Dalits, with more
than 1,400 reported incidents. A lot of this violence is rooted in the conflict of interests
between the backward castes and the Dalits. According to NCRB data, while the national
conviction rate for overall IPC crimes stood at 38.5%, it was only 23.9% in the case of
crimes against SC. The National Crime Records Bureau has shown that between 1995
and 2007 the average number of crimes registered under the Act was 33,956 per year
bringing the daily average of 93 instances. Incidentally, more number of atrocities against
dalits, are reported from southern districts, and the study conducted by Evidence, a
129
human rights organization found that 124 cases of atrocities were against dalit women in
25 districts of Tamil Nadu from January 2009 to September 2013. These numbers pertain
only to those atrocities that were registered in police stations and pursued legally and not
all incidents of atrocities. However, the conviction rate during the period was only
30.3 percent, over 80 percent atrocities cases are pending for trial. This study has
analysed the cases registered under the SC / ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 within
Dalit’s higher illiteracy rates, higher poverty levels and lower social status increases
their vulnerability to more discrimination and violence than non-dalits. Majority of dalits
reside in villages and the vast majority of them do not own land. Most of the Dalits lead
lives as landless agricultural labourers. About 66% were of male as complainants and
their profile was very low and under development, such as illiterate (42%) and daily
wager (60.5%) and majority of the respondents hailed from rural areas (82%). In general,
disposed and 24% of the cases were prolonged for more than 5 years.
Dalit woman, who was beaten with iron rods and disrobed after she protested
against the accused defecating at the field near her house, suffered serious head injuries
and was admitted to a private nursing home which failed to treat her. Dalits, against
dangerous for a Dalit to allow his shadow to fall across an upper-caste man – it is the
biggest crime a Dalit can commit. Considerable physical violence is inflicted on members
The term "atrocity" is a legal one. Atrocity cases against Dalits vary in severity and
130
form, including the following: Causing injury, insult, or annoyance to a Dalit; Assaulting,
raping, or using force of any kind against a Dalit woman or a Dalit girl; Physically
Dalit to leave his/her house, village, or other place of residence; Interfering with a Dalit’s
legal rights to land, premises, or water. The cases reported ranged from verbal abuse
(42%), physical torture (29%). About 16% of the cases registered were related to the political
The process of criminal justice starts with the registration of information about the
violence by the police and ends with the judgement by the courts – to punish the accused
and provide compensation to the affected. Some police, mostly in rural areas, are
neglecting their duties. The First Information Report (FIR) was rejected. The Act
provides Special courts to try the cases registered under this Act. It also ensures stringent
punishment to the violators and relief and rehabilitation for the affected victims.
The SC/ST PoA Act 1989 rule 1995 mandates that the offences registered under this
Act should be investigated by an officer not below the rank of officer of a Deputy
Superintendent of Police. For the better implementation of this Act and it’s supervision,
the rules mandate for the establishment of vigilance committee in both District and State
level. The Police are the first agency in the criminal justice system and with the
registering of an FIR, following any incidence of violence, the criminal justice system is
set in motion. But unfortunately the police still decide which complaints to register and
which one to leave. Unless pressurized through court directions, through interventions by
movements and NGOs or through media highlighting the case, frequently the police try
131
not to register an FIR in cases of atrocities against dalits. While analyzing the reasons for
the delay in filing FIR in SC/ST cases, it was found that the police authority neglected the
Production of charge sheet is very important to enter into the courts and to
conduct the cases in Special courts. Following were the reasons for delay in production of
charge sheet: such as viz law and order problems faced by police authority (58%) where
as 24% were not preparing proper charge sheets within the stipulated period. Moreover,
non-availability of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) (18%) was another reason for delay
The Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes has found that the accused in 98 per cent of cases of atrocities against Dalits were
allowed to go scot-free. The reason: witnesses do not turn up for fear of being attacked.
While discussing the adjournment in SC/ST cases, nearly half of the cases (47%) were
adjourned for recalling witnesses under CrPC. However non-production of witness by the
police authority, boycott by advocates, shortage of administrative staff in the courts (18%)
and inability to come to the courts and unable meet to court expenses (16%), all this
culminated in the cases, were the other reasons for adjournment and were expedited properly.
After registering the cases, the SC/ST complainants faced some problems. The
majority of the victim / de facto complainant (66%) faced ill-treatment by the police authority
where as 13% of them faced the problem such as outcast by the community appeal.
Caste discrimination against Dalits is deep-rooted in society and the economy and
quick-fix solutions through the law alone will not help. Measures against discrimination
are complicated by the fact that there is increasing evidence of intra-caste differentiation
132
among Dalits. “After registering the cases in the Police Stations, the victim /de facto
complainant faced problems in the family itself. Nearly half of the victim/ de facto
complainant (55%) faced discrimination by the community and the complainants were
stigmatized by the community people. Moreover, no marriage alliance was preferred for
their sons and daughters in case of about 16% of the cases and the family was treated as out
cast by the village people (16%) and face ill-treatment (13%) by the accused. Thus, the
SC/ST complainants face stigma and discrimination and are kept away from social justice.
The causes for acquittals / conviction about 30% of the cases were convicted due
to police planning stock witnesses in the case and delay for several years in examining
the witness. Sometimes the schedule caste leaders get money from the accused which
accounts for 13% cases in this study. For the remaining 5%, the cases were not landed in
The report quotes findings from a survey done in 2008 by the Tamil Nadu
Untouchability Eradication Front which highlighted how dalits face discrimination at all
levels - from being refused permission to collect water at the village tap to not being
allowed to draw rations from ration shops. This discrimination extended to 20 districts in
the state. The plight of dalit is much worse. Not only do they face physical violence, they
also have limited access to livelihood, food, water, sanitation and other welfare
programmes. The economic problems faced by the complainants were loss of livelihood
(42%) and incurred heavy expenses for travel and court related purposes (21%) the
133
All the complainants faced some kind of psychological and emotional problems
after becoming the complainants. About 42% of the complainants felt insecure after
registering the case, and 37% of the complainants faced criminal intimidation and threat
during case filing period. A majority of the SC/ST cases were registered from the rural
areas, as the social stigma attached against schedule castes were high in rural areas when
Majority of the complainants were in the age group of 25-40 years and faced
half of the respondents faced ill-treatment in the police station (58%) whereas the
Due to the atrocities and violence, the dalit population had insecurity and loss of
livelihood. Poverty ratio among SCs is very high compared to non-SCs with 33%. Nearly
one-third of the complainants felt unsecured (32%) and lost their livelihood (34%) in order to
attend the cases whenever they were summoned by the court to attend the trials.
134
PART II
complete only after the data has been subjected to a proper analysis. The analysis will
The present study describes the nature of cases against SC/ST population.
A decadal analysis was carried out during the period from 2000 to 2010. Relevant
2000 14 10.5
2001 14 10.5
2002 29 21.1
2003 18 13.2
2004 04 2.6
2006 22 15.8
2007 7 5.3
2008 22 15.8
2009 4 2.6
2010 4 2.6
138 100.0
135
The above table shows that about one fifth (21%) of the cases were registered in
the year 2002 and about one sixth (16%) of the cases were registered during 2006 and
2008 bearing these three years, the number of cases registered were minimum and the
reason might be the fear, lack of awareness or apathy of officials etc. The complainants
were afraid of legal formalities and uniform fear. SC/ST Population was the prime target
of atrocities. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 was necessitated due to the fact that the Scheduled Tribes still remained vulnerable
and to protect them from atrocities in particular. The Act was expected to provide the
Male 91 65.8
Female 47 34.2
While analyzing gender of the complainants, above table shows that two third of
the complainants were males (66%) and one third were females (34%). The data shows
that the women also do complain in the police station.From the above table it is inferred
136
Chart No: 4.1
Female
34%
Male
66%
No. of
Age group (in years) Percentage
Respondents
While analysing the age group of the complainants, it was found that good
majority of the respondents (87%) were in the age group of 25-40 years and about one
137
Table No: 4.4
No. of
Educational status Percentage
Respondents
literate 80 57.9
1-8 18 13.2
9-10 7 5.3
+2 7 5.3
Graduates 26 18.4
The above table shows that about 58% of the complainants were just literates.
It means the complainants were due to read and Wright only The literacy rate is very low
among SC population in India aligning with, Naidu (2004)who found that majority of the
sample Scheduled Castes are illiterates and among the literates, majority have minimal
educational attainment.
138
Table No: 4.5
No. of
Types of occupation Percentage
Respondents
Sweeper 7 5.3
Driver 7 5.3
Student 4 2.6
Majority of the complainants (60.5%) were daily wagers. Moreover, 26% of the
respondents were self-employed and 5% each were in the category of sweeper and driver.
Occupational status
Student 3%
Driver 5%
Sweeper 5%
139
Table No: 4.6
No. of
Living area Percentage
Respondents
Urban 26 18.4
A good majority of the respondents lived in the rural areas (82%) where as just
18% of respondents were in urban areas. Almost all the census reports established that
more SC/ST population live only in rural areas. Simon Charsley and Karanth, (2001)
have described the status of rural untouchable cases and studied their efforts to challenge
the daily humiliations they faced as the rural dalits face more atrocities and are vulnerable
140
Table No: 4.7
No. of
No. of accused involved in each case Percentage
Respondents
3 to 5 persons 26 18.4
Table No 4.7 shows the number of accused involved in each case and in about
half of the cases only one individual had involved and in case of about one third (28.9%)
of the cases, two persons were involved. About one-fifth (18.5%) cases found
involvement of three to five persons and in about one tenth of the cases, more than 5
141
Table No: 4.8
No. of
Pendency time Percentage
Respondents
The above table shows that the majority of the cases (50%) were cleared within a
period of one year and about one fourth of the cases (26.3%) were disposed off within
one to three years. In addition, it is noticed that about one-fifth (18.4%) cases were tried
142
Table No: 4.9
No. of
Nature of the case Percentage
Respondents
The above table shows the nature of the cases registered under the Act of 1989.
The cases were reported as scolding using filthy language (42%), beating and harassment
(29%). About 16% of the cases were related to the political issues/problems whereas
13% were relating to cases affecting modesty of women. Sukhadeo Thorat and
Narender Kumar, (2008) exposed that the problems of caste, discrimination and
143
Chart No: 4.3
45% 42%
40%
35%
29%
30%
25%
20% 16%
15% 13%
10%
5%
0%
Scolding / Filthy Beating / Modesty of Politicizing of the
language harassment woman issue
144
Table No: 4.10
Reasons for Delay in filing FIR in the cases under SC/ST Act
No. of
Reasons Percentage
Respondents
The FIR is an important document because it sets the process of criminal justice
in motion. It is only after the FIR is registered in the police station that the police take up
investigation of the case. Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable
offence, including police officers, can file an FIR. While analysing the reasons for
delaying in filing FIR in the SC/ST cases, the table shows that majority of the cases
(71%) were delayed mainly due to the negligence of police authority. The other major
reasons for delay in filing FIR were ignorance of the victim (16%) and political influence
against SC/ST people (13%), it is unfortunate to note that the authorities who are
supported to enforce the law seems to be the reason for delay in filing FIR which shows
145
Table No: 4.11
No. of
Reasons Percentage
Respondents
Production of charge sheet is very important to enter into the courts and to proceed
the cases in courts. Sometimes there were reasons for delay in production of charge sheet,
such as confusion to concentrate on law and order problems on the part of police authority
(58%), where as 24% were not preparing proper charge sheets within the stipulated period.
Moreover non-availability of Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) (18%) was another reason for
delay in production of charge sheet in the cases related to SC/ST under the Act 1989.
146
Chart No: 4.4
Not preparing
charge sheets
within the
period, 23.70%
Non availability
of special public
prosecutor
(SPP), 18.40%
147
Table No: 4.12
No. of
Causes for adjournment Percentage
Respondents
a definite future date or indefinitely (called sine die adjournment),and is awarded at the
request of a party to the case. As for as the adjournment in SC/ST cases, table No.4.12
shows that nearly half of the cases (47%) were adjourned due to recalling witness in
Cr. P.C. In case of about one fifth of the cases (18%), the reason for adjournment was
non-production of witness by police and about another one fifth of adjournment were due
to boycott by lawyers and shortage of judicial personnel of the court. To worsen the case
in about one sixth (16%) of the cases, the reason for the adjournment was inability of
complainants to meet over the expenses on travels, food, fees etc due to their poor
economic condition.
148
Table No: 4.13
No. of
Social cost of trials in the case Percentage
Respondents
Social cost is also considered to be the private cost plus externalities. Social costs
(or benefits) include internal costs (or benefits) together with any other effects that may
create costs (or benefits) for other members of the community. Social costs are all
opportunity costs. The above table discusses the social cost of prizes indicators and its
density. After filing the cases under prevention of atrocities against SC/ST, the social
impact was high. About 63% of the complainants had lost their means of labour.
The respondents/accused have to go for cases taking time off work to the police station
and court. After filing the cases the complainant faced (30%) discrimination in the
community level, however 8% of complainants lost their dignity due to these cases.
149
Table No: 4.14
No. of
Social problems faced by the complainant Percentage
Respondents
After registering the cases, the SC/ST complainants faced some common
problems as told by the respondent. The above table shows that majority of the
respondents (66%) faced Ill-treatment by the police authority and whereas 13% of the
respondent had faced problems like threats, from the relatives or friends. Moreover, 13%
of respondents reflected that they found it difficult to meet expenses to conduct the cases
and about 8% of the respondents felt that they have no access to higher officials.
150
Table No: 4.15
No. of
Family problems faced by the complainant Percentage
Respondents
After becoming a complainant the individual faces a number of problems not only
from the village and own community but also from their family itself. In addition, nearly
half of the respondents (55%) faced discrimination by the community and the
complainants were stigmatized by the community people. Moreover, there were other
problems such as difficulty in entering into marriage alliance for their son/daughter
(16%), family considered as out cast by the village people (16%) and ill-treatment by the
accused (13%) also. Thus, complainants face stigma and discrimination by the
community village and by their own family though special Act is enacted to protect them
from discrimination.
151
Table No: 4.16
The above table shows the causes for acquittals / conviction. About 30% of the
cases were convicted due to police stock planning false witness case and delay in several
years in examining the witness. Sometimes the schedule caste leaders get money from the
accused, about 13% cases in this study. The remaining five per cent cases were not
conducted sincerely.
35%
29% 29%
30%
24%
25%
20%
15% 13%
10% 5%
5%
0%
Prosecution Police planning SC Leaders get Not conducting Delay in several
witness leaving stock witness money from case sincerely years in
in hostile false case accused by the police examining the
witness witness
152
Table No: 4.17
In Indian society, caste is still the most powerful factor in determining a person's
shows that the position of scheduled caste families is awful. In many cases, their plight is
getting worse day by day. The table no 4.17 showed that complainants of SC/ST cases
face many problems that affected their economy. About 42% of the respondents lost their
livelihood for conducting cases against the caste Hindus. About one fifth of the
respondents (21%) faced monetary problem by way of travel, food and fees and another
one fifth felt that the apathy of their family members were not supporting them financially.
Also about 16%of the respondents felt that the police and court were not compensating for
travel and food as per the legal provisions for the benefits of the witness.
153
Table No: 4.18
In any case, whether civil or criminal, both the complainants and the accused are
normally distracted from normal life. The above table shows that about 42% of the
respondent felt in secure after making the complaints due to obvious reasons. Almost one
third respondent (36.8%) were afraid of criminal intimidation and one fifth of them
154
Table No. 4.19
The majority of the SC/ST cases (82%) were registered from the rural areas than
urban. The untouchability and social stigma was high against schedule castes in rural areas.
39.50%
Rural Urban
23.70%
10.50%
7.90% 7.90%
5.30%
2.60% 2.60%
155
Table No. 4.20
Ill
Discriminatio
treatment Feeling Loss of live
n by the
in the police insecurity hood
Age community
station
No % No % No % No %
25-40 years 80 88 43 91 69 91 47 81
41-55 years 11 12 14 9 7 9 11 19
After registering the cases (in Police station/ courts), the complainants face
ill-treatment, insecurity, discrimination, and financial crisis. The above table analyses
the age factors and various problems. The age between 25-40 years is considered
potential and productive period. During this period, the human beings expect self-esteem,
loyalty, recognition from the fellow men and community. The table No 4.20 shows that
the majority of the respondents in age group of (25-40 years) faced numerous problems
respondents faced ill-treatment in the police station and families of the complainants were
(32%) felt in secure and about one third of them (34%) experienced loss of wages.
Mahapatra (2004) pointed out that the Dalits were suppressed in Indian society, the
inequalities were still prevailing, and the Dalits are deprived of the fundamental rights.
156