T.V. Masilamani, J.@mdashThe accused 1 and 2 are the appellants. They were charged for the offence u/s 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial Court convicted and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for six months.
2. The facts of the case against the accused may be narrated briefly as follows:-
On 26.10.1992 at about 5.00 P.M., the accused had with the intention to denigrate, insult, intimidate and humiliate P.W.1, Manthiram abused him by using the words "gwf;Tjpg[[s;s" and caused aspersion in the public place calling his caste and thereby committed an offence under the said provision of law. Hence, the respondent filed the final report against the accused before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Tirunelveli. P.W.1, Manthiram belonged to Hindu Paraiyar community and the accused hail from Thevar community. P.W.1 cultivated the land of P.W.4, Subramaniam and shared the crop and also worked as a labourer under him. Similarly, one Velu Konar was also cultivating the land of P.W.4 on the same terms. At or about the time of occurrence, Velu Konar raised groundnut crop therein. At the instance of P.W.4, Subramanian, P.W.1 demanded Velu Konar to deliver the share in the crop harvested at that time towards lease due to P.W.4, but Velu Konar refused to comply with such demand. Hence, on 30.8.1992 when P.W.4 came to the village, P.W.1, Manthiram informed him about the said refusal to deliver the share in the crop and thereupon, P.W.4 had thrown a challenge to collect the share from Velu Konar. While so, on the date of occurrence at about 9.30 P.M., the second accused, Kandiah Pandian and two others prevented P.W.1, Manthiram from irrigating the land and assaulted him with stick and hence, P.W.1 lodged a complaint on the next day before the Thisaiyan Vilai Police Station. P.W.6, Sub Inspector of Police of the said station registered a case in Crime No. 444/1992 under Sections 323, 341, 506(ii) I.P.C. against the second accused and two others (vide) Ex.P-4. On 26.10.1992 at about 5.00 P.M., when P.W.1 and P.W.2 Velandi Konar were conversing with one Raman at the place of occurrence, the first accused restrained P.W.1 from proceeding and insulted him and denigrated his caste by uttering "gwf;Tjpkfnd epy;Y". Thereafter, the second accused had not only abused but threatened P.W.1to withdraw the complaint given against him and also uttered the abusive words denigrating his caste. Hence, P.W.1 was put to mental agony and consequently, on the next day, he lodged a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thirunagar, Madurai against the accused and thereafter, the said complaint was forwarded to the Palayamkottai Medai police (vide) Ex.P-1. On receipt of the complaint Ex.P-1 on 28.10.1992 from P.W.1, the Sub Inspector P.W.7, Rasul Mohaideen, registered a case in Crime No. 32/1992 against the accused u/s 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (vide) Ex.P-5 and forwarded the same to the Court and copies thereof to higher officials. P.W.8, Krishna Pillai, Inspector of Police, Palayamkottai received the F.I.R., proceeded to the place of occurrence and examined P.W.3, Sadaiyan and other witnesses and prepared observation mahazar, Ex.P-2, in the presence of witnesses and Ex.P-6 rough sketch and thereafter, he examined P.W.4 and recorded his statement. At the request made by P.W.8, Inspector, P.W.5, Varadarajan, Tasildar issued community certificate Ex.P-3 to the effect that P.W.1 belongs to schedule caste. After completing the investigation, P.W.8 filed a final report on 20.12.1992 against the accused under the said provision of law.
3. The second accused stated at the time of questioning u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that P.W.1, Manthiram belongs to Christian religion and produced a document in support of such contention. Both have denied the incriminating circumstances in the evidence at the time of questioning u/s 313 Cr.P.C. In the above circumstances, it becomes necessary to consider whether the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the accused has to be set aside as prayed for.
4. It is common ground that in order to sustain the conviction and sentence against the accused, the prosecution side has to establish that the accused have intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant, P.W.1 herein, in the place of occurrence which was within the public view and such insult or intimidation was perpetrated with the intention to humiliate P.W.1 with reference to his status as a Schedule Caste citizen.
5. The first contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the trial Court failed to appreciate the circumstance that P.W.1, Manthiram is inimically disposed of towards the second accused, as he had already given a complaint to the police against him and two others and therefore, he has urged that the evidence of P.W.1 is not reliable, since he has got a strong motive against the accused. Similarly, he has contended that P.W.2, Velandi Konar is not a person belonging to the same village, as he hails from Kumarapuram village and his presence at the time of occurrence is doubtful and therefore, it is not safe to rely on his evidence also. In this connection, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has argued that the occurrence took place in Kumarpuram where from both P.Ws.1 and 2 hail and therefore he has urged that the contention of the learned counsel for the accused has no basis. It is seen from the records of the case that both P.Ws.1 and 2 hail from the same village Kumarapuram where the occurrence took place and therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the accused in this respect. On the contrary, the learned Government Advocate has argued that P.W.1, Manthiram is a share cropper cultivating the land of P.W.4, Subramanian and that on account of the demand made by P.W.1 at the behest of P.W.4 to Velu Konar, another share cropper in respect of the land of P.W.4, to pay the share in the crop harvested earlier by him, a complaint was lodged at the instance of P.W.1 as against the second accused and two others. Hence the evidence of P.W.1, corroborated by the evidence of P.W.6 Thanaraj, Sub Inspector of Police and Ex.P-4, F.I.R. in Crime No. 444/1992 of the Thisaiyan Vilai Police Station under Sections 323, 341 and 506(II) I.P.C. filed against the second accused and two others would go to show and prove that the earlier complaint could not be the motive for lodging this prosecution against the accused. As has been rightly pointed by the learned Government Advocate, prior enmity is a double edged weapon relegated to the background, in view of the whole evidence before the Court. On a careful perusal of the above circumstance and the evidence of the case, I am of the opinion that the above grounds raised by the learned counsel for the accused are not tenable.
6. Though the learned counsel for the accused would urge that the evidence of P.W.2 is not believable for the reason that he would not have been present at the time of occurrence, such contention has no basis in view of the specific evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case. According to P.W.2, who belongs to Konar community, he was present at the time of occurrence, as he had returned to his village to celebrate Diwali festival from Kerala where he is eking his livelihood. His evidence is that on the date of occurrence (i.e.,) 26.10.1992 at about 5.00 P.M. when Raman and he were conversing near Noon Meal Centre of the village, P.W.1 was coming from north-south and both the accused came in the opposite direction from south-north, that it was the first accused who had uttered the words "gwf;Tjpkfnd epy;Y" and the second accused abused by saying "vd; kPJ bfhLj;j tHf;if thg!; th'';F gwf;Tjpkfnd" and that thereafter P.W.1, Manthiram wept and proceeded towards south and the accused left the place and proceeded towards north. His cross-examination on the part of the accused does not reveal any circumstance to disbelieve his evidence. Hence, it is urged by the learned Government Advocate that the occurrence that was spoken to by P.W.1, Manthiram is fully corroborated by P.W.2. He has urged further that since P.W.1 belonged to Adi Dravida community inasmuch as P.W.2 belonged to Konar community, the evidence of the latter assumes more importance. Having regard to the totality of the evidence and the arguments of either side, I am inclined to accept the contention of the learned Government Advocate and hold that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the finding of the trial Court in this respect has to be confirmed.
7. The next contention of the learned counsel for the accused is that the birth certificate of the daughter of P.W.1, Manthiram and his wife, Ponnammal produced at the time of questioning of the accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C. shows that they belong to Christian Harijan community and that therefore, a grave suspicion is cast upon the case of the prosecution in this respect. But, on the other hand, the learned Government Advocate has pointed out the evidence of P.W.5 Varadarajan, erstwhile Tahsildar of Radhapuram Taluk, to the effect that he issued Ex.P-3 community certificate to the effect that P.W.1 belongs to Hindu Adi Dravida community. He has stated categorically that he is not aware of the registration of P.W.1 as Christian by the Sub Registrar, Thisaiyan Vilai. The learned counsel for the accused has pointed out the evidence of P.W.1, Manthiram in cross-examination that his daughter born in 1974 in the Primary Health Centre, Thisaiyan Vilai was named as Antony Stalin Mary and that the same had been registered by the Registrar of Births and Deaths, Thisaiyan Vilai and therefore, he has urged that such evidence of P.W.1 coupled with the birth certificate would go to show that P.W.1 embraced Christian religion subsequently. On the contrary, it has been pointed out by the learned Government Advocate that P.W.1 has denied categorically in the cross-examination that at the time of registering the birth of his daughter, his community had been registered as Christian Paraiyar community and therefore, he has argued that in view of the evidence of P.W.5, Tahsildar, who is the competent authority to issue the community certificate of P.W.1 in accordance with the list maintained by the revenue authorities under the provisions of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Orders (Amendment) Act, 1976 under Ex.P-3, the production of the birth certificate by the accused cannot in any way disprove the case of the prosecution. Though the learned counsel for the accused has relied on a decision in CHELLAMMAL v. ANGAMUTHU 1977 (Cri.) L.W. 217 regarding the authenticity of the entries in the birth certificate produced in this case u/s 35 of the Evidence Act, the facts of the said case are not similar to that of this case and therefore, in view of the evidence of P.W.5 coupled with Ex.P-3, it cannot be said that the birth certificate produced by the accused has dislodged the probative value of Ex.P-3, community certificate issued by the competent authority. It is in these circumstances that the learned Government Advocate has urged that in the absence of community certificate issued by the competent authority showing that P.W.1 embraced Christian religion, Ex.P-3 and the evidence of P.W.5 have proved that P.W.1 belonged to Hindu Adi Dravida Schedule Caste on the date of the occurrence. Having regard to the above facts and the evidence of the case, I am inclined to hold that the prosecution has proved the charge u/s 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 beyond reasonable doubt.
8. Hence, the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is confirmed and the appeal is dismissed accordingly. The appellants/accused are directed to surrender before the trial Court to undergo the remaining period of sentence.
