Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2440 (MAD)

Palanichamy Nadar v. State

2015-07-08

P.DEVADASS

body2015
Judgment P. Devadass, J. 1. The sole accused in the Spl. S.C. No. 27 of 2006 on the file of the Special Judge under SC/ST (PT) Act/Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore is the appellant. The accused has been prosecuted before the said Court for having committed offences under section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act r/w 354 of I.P.C. and Section 323 of I.P.C. Ultimately, he was convicted and sentenced as detailed below:- Conviction Sentence (i) 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act 6 months R.I. and fine Rs. 1000/- i/d 2 months R.I. (ii) 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act r/w 354 I.P.C. One year R.I. and fine Rs. 1000/- i/d 2 months R.I. (iii) 323 I.P.C. Fine Rs. 1000/- i/d 2 months R.I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The case of the prosecution runs as under: (i) P.W. 1 Kanniammal belongs to Mangalam Village in Palladam Taluk in Coimbatore District. She belongs to Arundhathiyar community (Scheduled Caste) Ex. P. 4 is the community certificate issued to her by P.W. 7 Paulraj, Tahsildar, Palladam Taluk. (ii) Appellant is running a petty shop very near to P.W. 1's house. He belongs to Nadar community, backward class (Nadar). (Ex. P5 Community certificate has been issued to him by P.W. 8 Viswanathan, Dy. Tahsildar, Palladam Taluk. (iii) On 7.10.2015 at about 10.45 a.m. in connection with discharge of waste water from the pipe quarrel arose between P.W. 1 and the appellant/accused. The accused called her by her caste intending to defame her. Accused also slapped her. This occurrence has been witnessed by P.W. 2, 3 and 9 viz., Muthammal, Chinnakali and Arumugam. P.W. 1 lodged Ex. P1 complaint with P.W. 10 Gugan, S.I. of Police, Mangalam Police station. He registered this case (Ex. P6 F.I.R.). (iv) P.W. 4 Dr. Rajkumar, Medical Officer, Government hospital, Tiruppur treated P.W. 1 and issued her Ex. P2 Wound certificate that she had simple injury. (v) P.W. 4 Balakrishnan, Dy. Superintendent Police, Tiruppur took up his investigation. He visited the scene place. Prepared Ex. P3 Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W. 6 Murugesan and another. He drew Ex. P7 rough sketch. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. He obtained community certificate both for the accused and P.W. 1. He also obtained wound certificate for P.W. 1. Superintendent Police, Tiruppur took up his investigation. He visited the scene place. Prepared Ex. P3 Observation Mahazar in the presence of P.W. 6 Murugesan and another. He drew Ex. P7 rough sketch. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. He obtained community certificate both for the accused and P.W. 1. He also obtained wound certificate for P.W. 1. Concluding his investigation, he filed the final report against the accused for offences under section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) r/w 354 I.P.C. and Sec. 323 I.P.C. 3. The learned Special Judge/Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore upon hearing both and on perusal of the case-records framed charges under Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) r/w 354 I.P.C. and Sec. 323 I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges. 4. To substantiate the charges, prosecution examined PWs-1 to 11, marked Exs. P-1 to P-7. On the incriminating aspects in the prosecution evidence, the accused has been examined under section 313 Cr.P.C. He denied the offences. He did not let in any evidence on his side. 5. Appreciating the said evidence and considering the arguments of both sides, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as already stated. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the appellant and the P.W. 1 are neighbours. They have forgotten the bitter past. Now, there is harmony between both sides. By the passage of time viz., 10 years the unpleasant events had fade away from their memory. Now, no foes, only friends. 7. P.W. 1 Kanniammal filed affidavit vouchsafing the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. P.W. 1 present today in Court. She had stated that she and the accused have become friends. Now, no enmity between them. Her statement has been recorded. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that P.W. 1 has been identified by Head Constable Venkatesh, Tiruppur police. 10. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned judgment and the entire materials on record. 11. The oral and documentary evidence let in which we have already seen had unimpeachably establishes the charges framed against the accused. We concur with the findings of the trial Court. 12. Now the accused and he victim/P.W. 1 have compromised the matter. They are neighbors. They are living peacefully. 13. 11. The oral and documentary evidence let in which we have already seen had unimpeachably establishes the charges framed against the accused. We concur with the findings of the trial Court. 12. Now the accused and he victim/P.W. 1 have compromised the matter. They are neighbors. They are living peacefully. 13. In Ishwarlal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 456 in a Criminal appeal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that when parties are compromised, it is not worthy to allow the parties to fight endlessly. In order to promote peace that is the sole object of justice, while confirming the conviction reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. Subsequently, in Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2009 SC 675 : (2008) 15 SCC 667 the same view has been reiterated. 14. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 1 SCC (Cri.) 160 : (2012) 10 SCC 303 has become authority on the aspect when the Court taking cognizance of such compromise relieving the parties from the panks of criminal proceedings. Subsequently, Larger Bench (3 Judge) of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reviewed the Gyan Singh case and considered the position of law in the matter of compromise in a non compoundable offence with reference to section 482Cr.P.C. and section 320(8) of Cr.P.C. and concluded that inherent power of the Court under section 482 Cr.P.C. is independent. Section 482 Cr.P.C. is based on the principle ex debito justitiae. Courts are intended for advancing justice. Courts under section 482 Cr.P.C. to do justice and undo injustice. As already noted, even before the Gyan Singh case, in 1973, 2008 and also recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while upholding the conviction with a view to maintain peace and communal harmony reduced the sentence to the period already undergone. 15. A learned Single Judge of this Court (Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. Sudanthiram) in Anbu v. Inspector of Police, Villupuram in Criminal Appeal in Cr. No. 268 of 2010 on 8.10.2012 where conviction has been recorded under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act noticing the compromise between the parties and to maintain communal harmony permitted compounding of the offence. (Also see Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat and Another, (2014) 4 SCC 149 . 16. No. 268 of 2010 on 8.10.2012 where conviction has been recorded under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act noticing the compromise between the parties and to maintain communal harmony permitted compounding of the offence. (Also see Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) and State of Rajasthan v. Shambhu Kewat and Another, (2014) 4 SCC 149 . 16. Now, in the case before us, Kanniammal/P.W. 1 and Palanisamy Nadar/appellant have forgotten all their differences, past bitterness. They are leading a peaceful life and there is preservation of communal harmony. In the circumstances, it is a fit case that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases can be applied. In the circumstances, this Criminal appeal is partly allowed. The convictions are confirmed. The sentence imposed on the appellant under section 3(1)(x) and Sec. 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (PA) Act r/w 354 of I.P.C. are reduced to the period already undergone. Bail bond executed by the appellant/accused shall stand cancelled.