Kannan vs State

P.R. Shivakumar, J.—The accused in Sessions Case No. 52 of 2000 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge (Special Court under the SC & ST Act), Chengalpattu, has preferred the present appeal against his conviction for an offence u/s 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and the punishment imposed thereon by the judgment of the Sessions Court, dated 19.06.2002.

The case of the prosecution in brief can be stated thus;

i) PW1, Chelladurai was a member of the Scheduled Caste and he was functioning as Treasurer of Ambedkar Makkal Iyakkam. For the timber purchased from the accused, he had paid a sum of Rs. 3,500/- and according to him, no amount was due regarding the said dealing. On 16.07.1998 PW1 had gone to Kanchipadi Village in connection with his business. While he was talking with one Govindasamy Reddy near Dhroupathy Amman Temple at Kachipadi, the appellant/accused who was already present in the said place of occurrence, demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from PW1. PW1 replied no amount was due from him. Enraged by the said reply the accused made an attempt to assault PW1. As PW1 showed resistance, the appellant/accused insulted him in the presence of others mentioning the name of his caste and threatening to beat him with slipper. Govindasamy, Palayam, Dhandukan and PW2-Arumugam were the eye witnesses to the occurrence, who pacified the accused as well as PW1 and prevented further untoward incident. Thereupon, Challadurai (PW1) gave a type-written complaint under Ex. P1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, Kanakamma Chatram Police Station. PW4 - Parthasarathy Raja, the then Sub Inspector of Police attached to the said police station, received the said complaint and registered a case in Cr. No. 381 of 1998 at Kanakamma Charam Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 341 and 294(B) IPC and 3(x) of the Act (The case seems to have been registered u/s 3(x) of the Act instead of the correct provision 3(1)(x) of the Act). PW6-Sanjaynag, who was working as the Joint Superintendent of Police, Thiruthani, took up the investigation of the case, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared necessary documents, examined the witnesses and recorded their statement and also instructed the Inspector of Police to obtain the community certificate of the accused as well as PW1 from the Tahsildar. As he was transferred before ever he could complete the investigation, his successor, namely PW7-Shalini Singh, who took charge as Assistant Superintendent of Police, Thiruthani, took up further investigation of the case, completed the investigation and submitted a final report alleging commission of an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act. After furnishing copies u/s 207 Cr.P.C. and following the necessary formalities, the committal Magistrate namely, the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Thiruthani, committed the case for trial to the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu (Special Court under the SC and ST Act).

The Special Court took the case on file as S.C. No. 52 of 2000 framed a charge against the appellant/accused for an offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act and recorded the plea of the accused, who pleaded not guilty. In the trial that followed the plea of the accused i.e. plea of innocence made by the accused, seven witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW7, five documents were marked as Ex. P1 to Ex. P5 on the side of the prosecution. When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C regarding the incriminating materials available in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, the accused stated that the evidence against him were false and contended that a false case had been foisted against him. No witness was examined and no document was marked on the side of the accused. No material object was produced on either side.

The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, after analyasing the evidence in the light of the submissions made by the public prosecutor as well as the defence counsel, came to the conclusion that the charge u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act stood proved beyond reasonable doubt held the appellant/accused guilty of the offence, convicted him for the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has brought forth this appeal before this Court on various grounds set out in the appeal petition.

This Court heard the submissions made by Mr. V. Arun, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/accused and Mr. R. Muniapparaj, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) representing the respondent/State. The materials available on record were also perused.

The accused, who was convicted by the trial Court for an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act, is the appellant herein. To establish an offence punishable u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act, the prosecution must prove that the person allegedly insulted was a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In this case, the learned Counsel for the appellant, without adverting to other aspects of the case, confined his argument with regard to the above aspect alone. According to the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the first and foremost requirement to sustain a conviction for an offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Act has not been satisfied by the prosecution. According to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, the alleged victim, namely PW1 Chelladurai was a born Christian, he continued to profess Christianity even as on the date of occurrence and a false certificate seems to have been obtained from the Revenue Authority for the purpose of this case long after date of alleged occurrence. Though the alleged victim PW1 would contend that he was a Christian till 1990 and in the year 1990 he converted to Hinduism, no proof was forthcoming to show when, where and how he converted to Hinduism from Christian, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended.

The learned Counsel has also pointed out the fact that nothing is found in Ex. P2, the community certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Thiruvallur, as to when the conversion was made. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that there was absence of evidence to show that either his parents or PW1 was a member of a Scheduled Caste even prior to their conversion to Hinduism and the year in which they converted from Hinduism to Christianity. According to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant the said defect and discrepancy found in the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution will be enough to hold that the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged victim PW1 was a member of a Scheduled Caste as on the date of occurrence to attract the provisions of the said Act and that the learned Principal Sessions Judge, has lost sight of the above said defect and arrived at a wrong conclusion that the prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other hand, Mr. R. Muniapparaj, Government Advocate (Criminal Side), representing the State, contended that the Constitution of India guarantees a fundamental right to everyone to profess and practice the religion of his choice; that the evidence of PW1 and Ex. P2 Community Certificate would conclusively prove that though PW1 was a Christian, he subsequently embraced Hinduism and thus became a member of a Scheduled Caste; that the certificate issued by the competent authority, namely the Tahsildar, Thiruvallur would conclusively prove the community status of PW1 which had got to be accepted by the Court and that therefore, there was nothing wrong in the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence of the trial Court. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) also contended