You are on page 1of 99

CHAPTER IV

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS AND


DISCUSSION
CHAPTER IV

PART I

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

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

by simple random technique and are given below.

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

India, New Delhi.

NATURE AND RESULT OF THE CASES

Case No: 01

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No. 14 of 2003. Judgement Date 16.02.2004

Occurrence Date 05.12.2001 at Jeeva Street, Neelambur,

Complaint date 01.02.2002.

Case against the accused Mr.Karuppusamy @ Karuppan, S/o Mr.Chinnappan,

2. Mr.Maruthachalam, S/o Mr.Karuppusamy @ Karuppan. The accused 1 and 2 belonged

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.

The complainant Mr.Viswanathan belonged to Scheduled caste. The above said

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.

The complainant Mr.Viswanathan lodged a complaint for the occurrence before

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

them were also cancelled.

61
Case No: 02

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No. 2 of 2003. Judgement Date 12.11.2003

Occurrence Date 28.02.1998 at Sungam, near Chinthamani Super Market, Trichy road,

Coimbatore, Complaint date 28.02.1998.

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

Devendra Kulathan Community and A2 belonging to Navithar Community, who were

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.

The complainant Mr.Murugavel belonged to SC/ST community. He was belonging

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

preferred against the three accused.

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

against all the three accused.

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

court on 07.11.2003 and denied the offence framed against him.

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

them were also cancelled.

Case No: 03

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No. 343 of 2000. Judgement Date 06.07.2001

Occurrence Date 30.07.1993 at Rasali Pirivu and Bellae palayam to Anaipalli pudur

Road, Complaint date 23.08.1993.

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 respectable family with wife and children.

The complainant Mr.Makali belonged to SC community. The above said complainant

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

PW-7 were examined to prove the case against the accused.

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

bonds executed by the accused were also cancelled.

65
Case No: 04

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No. 209 of 2002. Judgement Date 06.08.2003

Occurrence Date 16.01.2001 at Kaliapuram,

Complaint date 16.01.2001.

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,

4. Mr.Karthikeyan, S/o Mr .Arunachala Gounder, Mr. S.Kannathal, W/o Mr.Kalimuthu,

6. Mrs.Kuppammal, W/o Mr.Pechimuthu, 7, Mr. Vazhukuparai Thangavel 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.

The complainant Mr.Nagaraj belonged to Arunthathiar caste which is comes

under SC /ST community. The above said complainant has got family and children.

The complainant belonged to Arunthathiar Community. He was a casual worker at

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.

The complainant Mr.Nagaraj lodged a complaint about the occurrence before

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

Special District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.27 of 2007. Judgement Date 02.06.2008

Case against Mr.Ganeshbabu, S/o Mr.Rajendran

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

Ms.Danalakshmi belonged to SC/ST Community. The complainant studied up to

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

02.07.2008 by the Hon'ble Court.

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

Special District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.33 of 2007. Judgement Date 12.06.2008

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

money for their urgent needs.

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 Karamadai Police Station against the accused on 06.04.2007.

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 charge framed against them.

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

about the offence charged against the accused.

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

the warrants against the accused were also cancelled.

Case No: 07

District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.I of 2008. Judgement Date 16.06.2008

Case against the accused Sasikumar (aged 24), S/o Selvaraj 2.Sakthivel @ Sakthi (aged 26),

S/o Selvaraj.

The complainant Ramasamy belonged to SC/ST community. He was working

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

section 3(1)(x) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

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

Special District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.35 of 2008

Judgement Date 28.01.2009

Case against the accused P.Ramu (aged 42), S/o Pinniyappan

The complainant Gopal belonged to SC community and was an agricultural daily

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

complaint against the accused in the Gudimangalam Police Station on 19.04.2008.

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

complaint against the accused.

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.

Hence the offence was not in favour against the accused.

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

against the accused was also cancelled.

Case No: 09

Special District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.41 of 2006

Judgement Date 13.12.2007

The case was against the accused Aruchamy (aged 43), S/o Rayappa Gounder.

The accused belonged to a respectable family and he belonged to Hindu Okkiliar

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

No.25/2006 against the accused.

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

charged against him before the court of law.

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

and acquitted him from the case.

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

the accused was also cancelled.

Case No: 10

Special District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No. 19 of 2008

Judgement Date 24.10.2008

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.

He belonged to Hindu Kongu Vellalar Community. He belonged to respectable family in the

village. He was a dominant person and most of the villagers were closely related to him.

The complainant Kittan belonged to SC community and was working as pump

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

complaint against the accused with Kamanaicken palayam Police Station.

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

hence the accused was acquitted from this charge only.

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

Special District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.40 of 2006

Judgement Date 22.09.2008

This case was against the accused Rajkumar (aged 50), S/o Ponnusamy Thevar.

He belonged to Thevar Community. He is a Police officer working as an Inspector of

Police at Chennai. He was living with wife and children.

The complainant Ramesh belonged to SC and was working as an Assistant in the

Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu. His daughter Sivagowri was working

as a Doctor in Kuppusamy Naidu Hospital,. Coimbatore. The complainant's daughter

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

Peelamedu. The accused was transferred to Chennai by promotion as Inspector of Police.

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

7/2006 and charged the accused.

The accused was charged for the offence under section 306 of I.P.C. and under

section 3(2)(v) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)

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

Special District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No. 11 of 2008. Judgement Date 15,10.2008.

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

were the members of a respectable family in their village.

The complainant Karuppathal belonged to SC community and she was working as

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

were working in Kuyavan Kuzhi Thottam at Kannampalayam,Coimbatore.

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.

The complainant Karuppathal lodged a complaint with Sulur Police Station on

12.11.2008 against all the accused. The police registered a case and filed FIR No.7/2007

against all the accused.

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

and denied all the charges framed against them.

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

judgement was pronounced by the Hon'ble Court,

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

Special District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.43 of 2006.

Judgement Date 14.09.2007.

This case was against the accused l. Rangasamy Gounder (aged 65), S/o

Kandasamy Gounder, 2.Kuppusamy Gounder (aged 55), S/o Thangavel Gounder

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

respectable family in that village.

The complainant Sarkaraiammal (aged 43 years) belonged to SC community.

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

No. 15/2005 against all the accused.

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

the documents 1 to 12 were marked as exhibits by the prosecution.

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

them were also cancelled.

Case No: 14

The Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.15 of 2003.

Judgement Date 20.01.2004.

This case was against the accused I.Selvaraj @ Thambu S/o Nataraj,

2.Jaganathan, S/o Nataraj, 3.Palanisamy S/o Periappa Gounder 4.Ramalingam,

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

members who belonged to respectable families in that village.

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

Cr No.439/2002 against all the accused.

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

denied all the offences charged against them.

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

also exhibited to prove the case against the accused.

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

of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

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

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No. 194 of 2002. Judgement Date 03.06.2003

Occurrence Date 15.01.2001 at Velliampalayam

Complaint date 19.01.2001.

This case against the accused 1 .Arukutty, S/o Nachmuthu Gounder,

2. Ramalingam, S/o Arumuga Gounder, 3. Appachi, S/o Nachimuthu Gounder, 4. Nataraj,

S/o Velusamy Gounder, 5.Ananth, S/o Thirumurthy of vellianpalayam, Coimbatore,

district. The accused belonged to Hindu Kongu Vellalar Community, residents of

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

in that village and they enjoyed the confidence of the villagers.

The complainant Chinnaraj and Murugan belonged to Adi Dravidar community

caste which comes under SC category. The said complainants had family and children.

The complainants formed Adi Thamizhar Peravai a caste association at Velliampalayam

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.

The complainant Chinnaraj lodged a complaint for the occurrence of offence

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

with Cr.No. l 1/2001 against all the accused.

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

charges framed against them.

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

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 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

them were cancelled.

Case No: 16

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No. l15 of 2002.

Judgment Date 17.06.2003

Occurrence Date 18.10.2001 at Authu Pollachi

This case was against the accused 1 Mr. .Kannadasan, S/o Ramasamy Gounder,

2. Mr.Mahalingam, S/o Karuppaya Gounder, 3. Mr.Nataraj, S/o Chinnappa 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.

The complainant Mr.Ramkumar belonged to Arunthathiar caste which is a SC

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

the general public.

The complainant lodged a complaint for the occurrence in Anamalai Police

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

denied all the charges made out against them.

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.

The bail bonds executed by them were also cancelled.

Case No: 17

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.163 of 2002.

Judgment Date 23.07.2003

Occurrence Date 11.06.2001 at Negamam, Chettipalayam.

This case was against the accused 1. Subramania Gounder, S/o Rangasamy Gounder,

and2. Krishnamurthy @ Giri @ Krishnasamy, S/o Subramania Gounder. The accused

belonged to Hindu Kongu Vellalar Community who were residing at Chettipalayam

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

village heads. There were also a notable persons in that village.

The complainant Ms.Parvathy belonged to a caste which is a SC. On 11.06.2001 at

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

filed FIR with Cr.No. 150/2001 against the accused.

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

denied all the charges made out against them.

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

bonds executed by them were also cancelled.

91
Case No: 18

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.31 of 2002.

Judgement Date 29.01.2003

Occurrence Date 04.08.J998

This case was against the accused Mr.Prabu, S/o Mr. Mani Naidu. The accused

belonged to Hindu Naidu caste which is a backward Community, residing at

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

his village. He was also a notable person in that village.

The complainant Mr.Thangaraj belonged to Devendrakula Vellalar caste which is a SC

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

department by way of a complaint. In support of this complaint Pudhiya Thamizhagam party

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

on 08.08.1998 and filed FIR with Cr.No.465/1998 against the accused.

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

witnesses were examined to prove the case against the accused.

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

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.254 of 2002.

Judgement Date 04.08.2003

This case was against the accused Mr.Arukutty @ Aruchamy, S./o Mr.Nachimuthu

Gounder. The accused belonged to Hindu Kongu Velalar Community, resident of

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

and enjoyed a high status in his village.

The complainant Kittan belonged to Arunthathiar caste which is a SC community.

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

consequences if he did not keep away from the issue.

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

of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

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

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.320 of 2000.

Judgement Date 08.02.2001

This case was against the accused Mr.Manikandan, S/o Mr.Chinnappa Gounder.

The accused belonged to Hindu Kongu Vellalar Community, residing at Kongalankurichiin

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.

He was a land lord and enjoyed a high status in the village.

The complainants Mr.Sakthivelu and Mr.Murugan, were members of

Arunthathiar caste which comes under SC category. Mr.Muruganwas residing opposite

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

denied the charges made out against him.

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

against the accused.

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

of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

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

bonds executed by him were also cancelled.

97
Case No: 21

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.322 of 2000.

Judgement Date 04.04.2001

Case against the accused Mr.Ponnusamy, S/o Mr.Krishnasamy Gounder,

The accused belonged to Hindu Kongu Vellalar Community, residing at Kongalankurichi.

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

and economically well to do person.

The complainants l.Kittan, S/o Palani, 2.Kannan @ Gopal belonged to Arunthathiar

caste which belonged to SC community. They were agricultural coolies working as farm

workers. On 24.02.1997 night at 8 pm when the complainants were travelling in the

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

filed FIR with Cr.No. 77/1997 against the accused.

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

the case against the accused.

In this case the charges were framed against the accused under section 3(1)(x) of

Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

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

Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.27 of 2003.

Judgement Date 06.04.2004

This case was against the accused Mr.Lakshmanasamy @ Rajendran, S/o

Subburayalu Naicker. The accused belonged to Hindu Kammavar Community and a

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

SC community. He was an agricultural daily wage earner working as farm worker.

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

P-6 were marked to prove the case against the accused.

100
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 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

Special and Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.30 of 2003.

Judgement Date 22.03.2004

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.

The complainant Lakshmi belonged to Arunthathiar caste which is a SC

community. She was the president of Eripatti village Panchayat. She was living with her

husband and children. On 30.09.2002 Marampudungigounden pudur village people

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

denied all the charges made against them.

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 case against the accused.

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

The Principal District and Sessions Judge Court, Coimbatore

Special SC No.421 of 2001.

Judgement Date 04.12.2002.

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

village. The accused was a member of a respectable family in his village.

The complainant Arumugam belonged to Arunthathiar caste which is a SC

community. He was working in Alampalayam Panchayat as a sweeper. In Alampalayam

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

Cr. No. 13/2001 against the accused.

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

charges made out against him.

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

P-7 were marked to prove the case against the accused.

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

him. The bail bond executed by him was also cancelled.

104
Case No: 25

The Learned special Judge and District Judge of Villupuram.

Special S.C No. 28 of 1998

Judgement dated 1990

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 .

The accused belonged to Gounder community and the complainant belonged to

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

police station on 10.03.1998 and gave a complaint against A1 at 11.30 a.m.

The Deputy Superintendent of Police took up investigation on the basis of 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

and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment each .

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

were set aside by the Hon’ble High court Madras.

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

place reliance on such uncorroborated version of P.W.1

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 Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras

Crl. Appeal No. 396 of 1995 Judgement dated 27.07.2001.

Occurrence date: 04.06.1986.

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

The Learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvannamalai

Special S.C No. 88 of 1998

Judgement dated 13.08.1999.

Occurrence date : 11.04.1998 at about 5.00 p.m. Veda Aundapattu Village.

On 11.04.1998 at about 5 p.m. PW1 Sivalingam raised groundnut grains in his

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

Police filed a final report against the accused.

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

in Crl.A. No. 668/1999.

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

of the absence of an order of committal when he took cognizance. Therefore, the

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

allowed and the conviction was set aside.

110
Case No. 28

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras

W.P. No. 11417 of 1995 and WMP No. 20225/1997

Judgement dated 07.09.2001.

Complaint lodged by K. Panneerselvam to register the complaint under the

provisions of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act,

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

sent the information in writing by post to the Superintendent of Police concerned to

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

of no cost. Consequently W.M.P. No. 20225/ 1997 was closed.

Case No. 29

The Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivakasi.

In Cr MP No. 4936 of 2002 Judgement dated 18.11.2002.

On the basis of the opinion dated 13.11.2002 given by the Director of Prosecution,

Virudhunagar, the case was registered.

In the above case, on investigation made 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

Magistrate, Sivakasi, order is illegal and liable to be quashed.

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

objectionable or illegal utterances of whomsoever is the maker of the statement.

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 above Crl.OP equally becomes liable to be dismissed.

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

The II Additional Sessions Judge (protection of civil rights), Thanjavoor

SC No. 105/1998 Judgement dated 24.08.1999.

Occurrence date: 22.07.1996 at 6.00 a.m

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

place on 22.07.1996 at about 6 a.m.

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,

the benefit of which should go to the accused.

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

at Madras in CA No. 713/1999 challenging the judgment dated 24.08.1999.

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

unhesitatingly that there is a violation of mandatory provisions of Rule 7 and this

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

same should be set aside. Hence the appeal deserves acceptance.

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

The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Madras

Crl.O.P No. 4002/2008 Judgment dated 27.06.2011.

Occurrence date: 12.01.2008 at about 9.30 p.m.

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

judicial custody on their production before the Metropolitan Magistrate concerned.

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

between 12.01.2008 to 20.01.2008. On 21.01.2008 the bail application was filed as

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

bail applications immediately. But the representation proved to be futile. Therefore a

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

persons on bail subject to certain conditions.

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

insult to the Presiding Officer of a court by using abusive language or unparliamentary

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 Hon’ble Special Judge, Thalassery, Kerala

Criminal Appeal No. 450/1997 Supreme Court of India

Judgement dated 26.02.2004.

Occurrence date: 20.09.1996 Evening at Town Bank Auditorium, Thalassery.

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

wherein he made certain discouraging observations willfully and deliberately emphasizing

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

summoning the accused No. 1 to stand trial.

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

to try an offence under the aforesaid Act.

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

committal to the Special Court.

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

insulted nor attempted to be insulted on the ground of untouchability. Therefore, the

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

the merit of the case.

Case No. 33

The Hon’ble Supreme Court,

Criminal Appeal No. 11/2010 Supreme Court of India

Judgement dated 05.01.2011.

Occurrence date: 13.05.1994 at about 5 p.m.

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

beating and abusing the victim Nandabai.

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

R.I. for 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- .

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

Rs. 5,000/- only to the complainant Nandabai.

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

Court and hence dismissed the appeal.

124
Case No. 34

The Hon’ble Supreme Court,

Criminal Appeal No. 303/2006 Supreme Court of India

Judgement dated 08.03.2006.

Occurrence date: 29.09.2003 at about 4 p.m.

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

Atrocities) Act at the Police Station.

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

accused from the charges made out against them.

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

evidence adduced by the parties and in accordance with law.

Case No. 35

The Hon’ble Supreme Court,

Criminal Appeal No. 287/2009 Supreme Court of India

Judgement dated 12.02.2009.

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

High Court allowed the petition.

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

was allowed by the Hon’ble High Court.

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

extraordinary jurisdiction of quashing the proceedings at any stage.

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that it needs no reiteration that the

FIR is not accepted to be an encyclopedia. Whether the accused belongs to Schedule

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

the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The course of investigation it is open to the

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

3 (1) (xi) of the Act was ruled out.

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

implemented by local authorities. The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, commonly known as POA Act, recognizes rape and

other forms of sexual violence as an “atrocity”- an aggravated offence, as opposed to the

general crime of rape.

According to the 2011 National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) report,

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

the period of 2000 to 2010.

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,

if a case / complaintis registered in a court/police station, it took a long period to get

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

discrimination although outlawed, is deeply ingrained. In rural areas it is still very

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

of these deprived and marginalized communities as substantiated by official reports.

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

injuring; Occupying or cultivating any land owned by or allotted to a Dalit; Forcing a

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

issues/problems and whereas 13% were related to modesty of women.

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

majority of the cases (71%).

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

in filing charge sheet.

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 police station.

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

family members were not co-operative to conduct the cases.

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

by the accused or from the relatives and friends.

The number of victims / de facto complainants was affected by police ill-treatment

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

compared to urban area.

Majority of the complainants were in the age group of 25-40 years and faced

numerous problems socially, economically, politically and psychologically. Nearly one-

half of the respondents faced ill-treatment in the police station (58%) whereas the

complainant families were discriminated by the community (50%) in their localities.

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

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Data will remain as data only until it is interpreted properly. A research is

complete only after the data has been subjected to a proper analysis. The analysis will

help the researchers to interpret and infer results.

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

interpretation has been made from the collected data.

Table No: 4.1

Year wise distribution of Cases registered with regard to SC/ST

Year Respondents Percentage

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

despite various measures taken to improve their socio-economic conditions in general

and to protect them from atrocities in particular. The Act was expected to provide the

necessary legal protection to them against the atrocities.

Table No: 4.2

Gender wise distribution of the Complainants / Petitioners

Gender Number Percentage

Male 91 65.8

Female 47 34.2

Total 138 100.0

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

that the one third of the victims were women.

136
Chart No: 4.1

Gender of the Complainants / Petitioners

Female
34%

Male
66%

Table No: 4.3

Age wise distribution of the Complainants / Petitioners

No. of
Age group (in years) Percentage
Respondents

25-40 years 120 86.8

41-55 years 18 13.2

Total 138 100.0

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

tenth (13.2%) were in the age group of 41-55 years.

137
Table No: 4.4

Distribution of respondents according to the Educational qualification

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

Total 138 100.0

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

Occupational status of the Complainants

No. of
Types of occupation Percentage
Respondents

Sweeper 7 5.3

Daily wager 83 60.5

Driver 7 5.3

Self employed 36 26.3

Student 4 2.6

Total 138 100.0

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.

Chart No: 4.2

Occupational status

Student 3%

Self employed 26%

Driver 5%

Daily wager 61%

Sweeper 5%

139
Table No: 4.6

Domicile area of the Respondents

No. of
Living area Percentage
Respondents

Rural 112 81.6

Urban 26 18.4

Total 138 100.0

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

to suppression and oppression.

140
Table No: 4.7

Number of accused involved in each case

No. of
No. of accused involved in each case Percentage
Respondents

Single person 58 42.1

Two persons 40 28.9

3 to 5 persons 26 18.4

5& above persons 14 10.5

Total 138 100.0

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

persons were involved.

141
Table No: 4.8

Pendency time of cases in the court of law

No. of
Pendency time Percentage
Respondents

Below 1 year 69 50.0

1-3 years 36 26.3

4-5 years 7 5.3

Above 5 years 26 18.4

Total 138 100.0

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

in the court for the more than five years.

142
Table No: 4.9

Nature of the Case / Complaint

No. of
Nature of the case Percentage
Respondents

Scolding / Filthy language 58 42.1

Beating / harassment 40 28.9

Modesty of woman 18 13.2

Politicizing the issue 22 15.8

Total 138 100.0

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

untouchability as understood by Ambedkar and his suggested remedies and actions.

143
Chart No: 4.3

Nature of the Cases

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

Ignorance / illiteracy 22 15.8

Influence by the political parties


18 13.2
/ other communities

Police negligence 98 71.1

Total 138 100.0

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

their apathy and negligence.

145
Table No: 4.11

Reasons for delaying in production of Charge sheet

No. of
Reasons Percentage
Respondents

Law and order problems for the police 80 57.9

Non availability of Special Public Prosecutor


26 18.4
(SPP)

Not preparing charge sheets within the period 32 23.7

Total 138 100.0

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

Reasons for delaying in production of Charge sheet

Not preparing
charge sheets
within the
period, 23.70%

Law and order


problems for the
police, 57.90%

Non availability
of special public
prosecutor
(SPP), 18.40%

147
Table No: 4.12

Causes for adjournment

No. of
Causes for adjournment Percentage
Respondents

Non production of witness by the police 26 18.4

By boycott of Advocates / shortage of steno


26 18.4
/ typist

Recalling witness under Cr. P.C 65 47.4

Unable to come to court and meet expenses 22 15.8

Total 138 100.0

Adjournment is suspension or postponement of the hearing of a case, either to

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

Social cost of trials indicators and its density

No. of
Social cost of trials in the case Percentage
Respondents

Physical / labour of complainant 87 63.2

Dignity of the complainant 11 7.9

Discrimination at the community level 40 28.9

Total 138 100.0

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.

Therefore, the complainants have to pay a heavy social cost.

149
Table No: 4.14

Distribution of the difficulties encountered by the complainants

No. of
Social problems faced by the complainant Percentage
Respondents

Ill treatment in the police station 91 65.8

Physical assault and threat from relatives /


18 13.2
friends of accused

Inability to meet transport and court expenses 18 13.2

No access to higher police officials 11 7.9

Total 138 100.0

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.

Chart No: 4.5

Social Problems faced by the complainant

No access of higher police 7.90%


authority SP DIG APP
Money to meet transport and court 13.20%
expenses
Physical assault and threat relatives 13.20%
/ friend of accused

Ill treatment in the police station 65.80%

150
Table No: 4.15

Family problems faced by the complainants

No. of
Family problems faced by the complainant Percentage
Respondents

Discrimination of family by their own 76 55.3


community

Difficulties in arranging marriage alliance for 22 15.8


their son / daughter

Ill treatment by the accused and their relatives 18 13.2

Family outcast by the village people 22 15.8

Total 138 100.0

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

Causes for acquittals / conviction

Causes for acquittals / conviction in the case Respondents Percent


Prosecution witness leaving in hostile witness 32 23.7
Police stock planning false witness case 40 28.9
SC leaders get money from accused 18 13.2
Not conducting case sincerely by the police 7 5.3
Delay in examining the witness for several years 40 28.9
Total 138 100.0

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.

Chart No: 4.6

Causes for acquittals / conviction

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

Economic problems faced by the complainant

Economic problems faced by the complainant Respondents Percent

Loss of live hood 58 42.1

More expenses for travel, food and fees 29 21.1

Apathy of family members are non cooperative 29 21.1

Non compliance of law in making disbursement 22 15.8


of money

Total 138 100.0

In Indian society, caste is still the most powerful factor in determining a person's

dignity in terms of socio-economic indicators. Almost every socio-economic indicator

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

Psychological problems faced by the complainants

Psychological problems faced by the


Respondents Percent
complainants

Mental agony due to police ill-treatment 29 21.1

Criminal intimidation by the accused 51 36.8

Due to in secure feeling 58 42.1

Total 138 100.0

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

(21.1%) experienced mental agony due to police ill-treatment.

154
Table No. 4.19

Domicile wise distribution and nature of cases against SC/ST

Rural Urban Total


Nature of the case
No % No % No %
Verbal abuse 55 49 4 15 59 43
Physical torture/ harassment 32 29 7 28 39 28
Molestation of woman 14 12 4 15 18 13
Political intimidation 11 10 11 42 22 16
Total 112 100 26 100 138 100

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.

Chart No: 4.7

Nature of the cases versus living areas

39.50%

Rural Urban
23.70%

10.50%
7.90% 7.90%
5.30%
2.60% 2.60%

Scolding / Filthy Beating / Modesty of politicalization of


language harassment woman the issue

155
Table No. 4.20

Age wise distribution of the complainants and problems encountered

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

Total 91 100 47 100 76 100 58 100

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

socially, economically, politically and psychologically. Nearly one-half of the

respondents faced ill-treatment in the police station and families of the complainants were

discriminated by the community in their locality. Nearly one-third of the complainants

(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

You might also like