MOOKAN, S/O.MALAIYANDI vs THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 17-09-2026
DELIVERED ON : 05.11.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.KARTHIKEYAN
Crl.A(MD) No.34 of 2019
CNR:{HCMD010346602019}
and
Crl.A(MD) No.284 of 2021
CNR:{HCMD010594642019}
Crl.A(MD) No.34 of 2019
1.Mookan
2.Pandi
..Appellants
Vs
The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Thiruppathur Sub Division
Thirukostiyur Police Station
Sivagangai District
Crime No.109 of 2012.
..Respondent
Prayer: This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set
aside the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for
PCR, Sivagangai in S.C.No.54 of 2013 dated 22.01.2019.
For Appellants :Mr.V.Lakshmanan
For Respondent :Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
__________
Page  1  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
Crl.A(MD) No.284 of 2021
Mahesh Kanna ..Appellant/PW1
Vs
1.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppathur Circle,
Sivagangai District.
Thirukostiyur Police Station,
Crime No.109 of 2012. ..1st Respondent
2.Kumarappan
3.Alagar ...Respondents 2 and 3 /
Accused 3 and 4
Prayer : This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of Cr.P.C., to
call for the records relating to the judgment dated 22.01.2019 made in
S.C.No.54 of 2013 on the file of the Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases,
Sivagangai and set aside the same as illegal and convict the respondents 2
and 3/ Accused Nos.3 and 4.
For Appellant :Mr.Gandhi Associates
for Mr.J.Karthikeyan
For R1 :Mr.A.Robinson
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
For R2 and R3 : Mr.V.Lakshmanan
COMMON JUDGMENT
The Criminal Appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.34 of 2019 is directed
against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Special Court for PCR, Sivagangai in S.C.No.54 of 2013 dated
__________
Page  2  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
22.01.2019.
1(i). The Criminal Appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.284 of 2021 is
directed against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions
Judge, Special Court for PCR, Sivagangai in S.C.No.54 of 2013 dated
22.01.2019.
2. Since both these appeals arose from the same judgment, this
Court is inclined to hear both these appeals together and to dispose of by
this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, the parties to the
appeals are referred to as per their ranking before the Trial Court.
3. On careful perusal of record, it is found that on 21.08.2012 at
around 12.00 noon, as per the direction of this Court in Crl.O.P(MD)
No.8938 of 2012, dated 21.08.2012, PW15 Mr.Chinnakaruppu registered
Ex.P15 First Information Report in Crime No.109 of 2012 for the
offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)
(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act. He forwarded the said First Information Report
to his higher officials for further action.
4. PW17 Mr.Madurai Swami, the then Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Tirupattur, has taken up the investigation of the above case on
__________
Page  3  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
21.08.2012, as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai in N.C.No.44/SJHRC dated 21.08.2012 and C.N.68SJ and
HRC PCR dated 21.08.2012. He visited the place of occurrence on the
same day, at around 15.00 and prepared Ex.P1 Observation Mahazar and
Ex.P7 Rough Sketch in the presence of witnesses PW4 Sundararajan and
Chokkalingam. Thereafter, he examined the witnesses Maheshkannan,
Muthu, Ganesan, Sundararajan and Chokkalingam and recorded their
statements. He examined the witnesses Dhanabalan, Adaikkalam,
Chandiran, Chellam, Aandal and recorded their statements.
5. On 26.08.2012, he examined the witnesses Jayabharathi, Durai,
Balan and Karuppaayi and recorded their statements. On 03.09.2012, he
received the Community Certificate of the Defacto complainant and the
Accused and examined the Tahsildar, Mr.Amirthalingam, who had issued
Community Certificates to them and recorded their statements. He
examined the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mr.Ganesan and
Chinnakaruppu and recorded their statements. On completion of the
investigation, he laid the final report before the Special Court on
07.09.2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 341, 506(i) of IPC
r/w. Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
__________
Page  4  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
6. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirupattur has taken cognizance
of the said final report in S.C.No.54 of 2013 and he issued summons to
the Accused and secured their appearance. He furnished copies of the
documents relied on by the prosecution under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and
thereafter committed the said case to the Court of Sessions, as the
offences are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
7. The Principal District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai has taken
cognizance of the case in S.C.No.54 of 2013 and framed charges against
Accused 1 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 341 IPC,
506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. The charges
were explained to the Accused which they denied and therefore, they
were tried by the Trial Court.
8. On the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW17 were examined
and Exhibits P1 to P7 were marked. Upon closure of the prosecution side
evidence, the incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence
against the Accused were put to them under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C.,
which the Accused denied and they have reported that they have
witnesses on their side. However, no witness was examined on the side of
the Accused. Therefore, the defence evidence was also closed.
__________
Page  5  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
9. After hearing both sides, the Trial Court has found Accused 1
and 2 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 506(i) IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. So far as the offence punishable
under Section 341 IPC is concerned, Accused 1 and 2 were found not
guilty. The Trial Court has found the Accused 3 and 4 not guilty of the
offences punishable under Section 341 IPC, Section 506(i) IPC and
Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
10. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, the
Accused 1 and 2 have come up with the appeal in Crl.A(MD) No.34 of
2019 and aggrieved by the order of acquittal recorded against Accused 3
and 4, the victim/ de facto complainant has come up with Crl.A(MD)
No.284 of 2021. However, it is to be noted that the victim/ de facto
complainant has not preferred any appeal as against the order of acquittal
recorded as against Accused 1 and 2 in respect of the offence punishable
under Section 341 of IPC.
11. Points for determination:
1. Whether the Trial Court is right in recording the conviction
as against Accused 1 and 2 in respect of the offences
punishable under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the
SC/ST (PoA) Act?
2. Whether the Trial Court is right in acquitting Accused 3 and
4 in respect of the charges levelled against them for the
__________
Page  6  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
offences punishable under Section 341 IPC, Section 506(i) IPC
and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act?
Answer:
12. On careful perusal of the record, it is found that it is the case of
the prosecution that the de facto complainant, PW1, belongs to the Hindu
Paraiyan Community. The Accused belong to the Chettinadu Valaiyar
Community. There exists a land dispute between the first Accused and
the de facto complainant. Due to the said previous enmity, on 23.08.2012,
at around 3.00 p.m., when PW1 was returning from Thirukoshtiyur
Joysiyar Orani, after taking bath, to his house, and when he was
proceeding through Thirukoshtiyur Madhavan Temple Street, the
Accused, who were standing near Rajagopal coffee stall, waylaid the de
facto complainant, abused him in filthy language by citing his caste name
and threatened him that they would murder him. Therefore, according to
the prosecution, the Accused are punishable under Sections 341 and
506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. To substantiate
the said case, the prosecution has projected PW1 to PW17 and exhibited
Ex.P1 to Ex.P7.
13. On a careful perusal of the record, it is found that the de facto
complainant was examined as PW1 before the Trial Court. In his
evidence, he deposed that he belongs to the Hindu Paraiyar Community.
__________
Page  7  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
The Accused belongs to the Chettinadu Valaiyar Community. He got a
field belongs to one Mookan of North Street in the name of this mother
by a Lease Deed. After one year, the said Mookam and the Accused
asked the de facto complainant to return the said land. But he refused. On
23.03.2012, at around 3.00 p.m., when he was returning from the oorani
after taking bath, at the entrance of the temple, A2 abused him by saying,
gwg ; gay;fSf;F ,q;F vd;dlh ghij ,jpy ; te;jh
ntl;btpLNtd;. Again, when PW1 questioned A2 as to why he was
speaking like this, A2 again abused him by saying, gwg;gaNy cd;id
“
ntl;b tpLNtd;. A1 abused him by saying, cd;id
” “
taYf;Fs; ,wq;fp ghUlh gwf;$jp kfNd and further abused him by
”
saying that he would not rest without kill him. A1 again abused him by
saying,
“ cd;id ,e;j rhjpf;fhuq;fs ,dp Nky ; ,e;j njUtpy;
elkhl tplf;$lhJ ”. Therefore, for about 10-15 days, none of them
went in that street. A3 and A4 took a stick and chased him. A2 attacked
him on nape of his neck and made him to fall down. He got up. At that
time, Ganesan and Muthu of their street came there and stopped the
quarrel. They took him to the Police Station and he lodged Ex.P1
complaint at the Police station. He went to the hospital for treatment for
the injuries he sustained.
__________
Page  8  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
14. PW2 Ganesan, in his evidence, deposed that in the year 2012,
at around 3.00 p.m., near Thirukostiyur Madhavan Temple, he and one
Muthu came after taking bath. At that time, there was a quarrel between
PW1 and the Accused. They had gone to the said place, as PW1 belongs
to their street. Since there was a scuffle, they took him to the Police
Station. As there was a crowd, they took PW1 along with them.
15. PW3 Selvam did not support the case of the prosecution, and
he was treated as hostile. PW4 Sundar Rajan, a witness to the
Observation Mahazar, did not support the case of the prosecution,
however, the prosecution was able to prove his signature found in
Observation Mahazar as Exhibit P2.
16. PW5 Aandal, PW6 Jayabharathi did not support the case of the
prosecution. Further, PW7, PW8, PW9, PW11, PW14 and PW16 also did
not support the case of the prosecution and they were treated as hostile by
the prosecution. Though the prosecution was permitted to cross-examine
those witnesses, the prosecution was not in a position to extract anything
in its favour.
17. PW10 Mr.Amirthalingam, the Tahsildar, Tirupattur, in his
evidence, deposed that he had issued Ex.P3 Community Certificate
__________
Page  9  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
stating that the de facto complainant belongs to the Hindu Paraiyar
Community and the Accused belong to the Hindu Chettinadu Valaiyar
Community.
18. PW12 Mr.Ganesan, the then Special Sub-Inspector of Police,
in his evidence, deposed that he had assisted the Investigation Officer in
his investigation.
19. PW13 Karuppaayi, in her evidence, deposed that prior to five
years, she purchased property from one Mookan by paying the sale
consideration. Ten persons attacking her son by saying, gwg;gaYf;F
“
vJf;Flh nrhj;J> <dg;gaNy? and, according to her, A2 and other
”
persons had abused her son and he informed her son that don’t pick any
quarrel. Further, She has not seen the occurrence directly.
20. PW15 is the Sub Inspector of Police who registered the First
Information Report. PW17 is the Investigation Officer. He deposed
regarding the investigation conducted by him.
21. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the
Accused 1 and 2 is that the prosecution has failed to prove that the
investigation was conducted by an Investigation Officer appointed by a
__________
Page  10  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
competent authority in compliance with Rule 7(2) of the SC/ST (PoA)
Rules, 1985. According to the learned counsel for Accused 1 and 2, the
prosecution has failed to mark the proceedings issued in favour of PW17
and therefore, an adverse inference needs to be drawn against the
prosecution. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for Accused 1
and 2, the entire investigation conducted by PW17 is illegal. Therefore, it
cannot be relied upon to prove the offences against Accused 1 and 2.
22. On a careful perusal of the record, it is found that PW17, the
Investigation Officer, in his evidence, deposed that he had taken up the
investigation as per the proceedings of the Superintendent of Police,
Sivagangai, dated 21.08.2012. The said proceedings were not marked
before the Trial Court. As per Rule 7(1) of the SC/ST (PoA) Rules, the
investigation of the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act shall be
conducted by a person not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of
Police. It is not that all the Deputy Superintendents of Police can
investigate offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act but it is only those who
are nominated by the competent authority. The said Rule is extracted
herein below for better understanding:
“7. Investigating Officer –
(1) An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by
a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent
__________
Page  11  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
of Police. The investigating officer shall be appointed by the
State Government/Director-General of Police/Superintendent
of Police after taking into account his past experience, sense of
ability and justice to perceive the implications of the case and
investigate it along with right lines within the shortest possible
time.”
In view of the said Rule, it is clear that the Superintendent of Police shall
appoint an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Superintendent of
Police, to investigate the case in the right direction, after taking into
account his past experience, sense of ability and justice to perceive the
implications of the case and investigate it along with right lines within the
shortest possible time. In the absence of the proceedings being marked
before the Trial Court, it could not be ascertained whether the
Superintendent of Police had exercised and applied his mind and
appointed PW17 as the Investigation Officer in this case. Therefore, as
contended by the learned counsel for Accused 1 and 2, the investigation
conducted by PW17 in respect of the SC/ST (PoA) Act is illegal.
23. The Hon'ble Apex Court in State of M.P. Vs. Chunnilal@
Chunni Singh (CDJ 2009 SC 750) has held that in cases where the
offences are punishable under the SC/ST (PoA) Act, if the Investigation
Officer is not appointed as per Rule 7(1)(a) of the SC/ST (PoA) Rules,
1995, then it will vitiate the investigation done by him with regard to the
__________
Page  12  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
offences punishable under the provisions of the SC and ST (PoA) Act. In
view of the above decision, it is clear that the investigation was not
conducted by the officer appointed by the competent authority. Only the
investigation with regard to the offences under the SC/ST (PoA) Act will
be affected and not the investigation in respect of the IPC offences.
24. Further, from the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Accused 1 and 2, it is found that PW1 has not deposed in his evidence
that the occurrence happened in public view. He has not spoken in his
evidence that, at the time of occurrence, common public were present.
Though as per Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act, the occurrence is
required to be happened in any place within public view, according to the
learned counsel for the victim, if the offence is committed in any public
place, it will satisfy this provision. However, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in
Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Utterkhand reported in 2020 INSC 636 has
observed what is public view as follows:
“14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be
regarded as “place in public view” had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as
Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.
(2008) 8 SCC 435. The Court had drawn distinction between
__________
Page  13  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
the expression “public place” and “in any place within public
view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be
seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary
wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public
view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building,
but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the
public view. The Court held as under:
“ 28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first
informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a
“chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the
gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place
within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place
within public view. It could have been a different matter had
the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also
was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed
outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the
lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the
public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building,
but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the
public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression
“place within public view” with the expression “public place”.
A place can be a private place but yet within the public view.
On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a
place which is owned or leased by the Government or the
__________
Page  14  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an
instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or
private bodies.”
15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant
were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of
the informant that there was any member of the public (not
merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the
house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were
uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In
the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain
witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the
persons present within the four walls of the building. The
offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of
the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in
Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public
view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the
building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is
the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per
respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others
were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for
the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of
property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on
account of possession of the said property would not disclose
an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated
or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
__________
Page  15  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of
Madhya Pradesh 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104, this Court held
that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the
fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not
be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that
there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by
the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled
Caste. The Court held as under:
“ 15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so
as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The
offence must have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and
Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased
was belonging to “Khangar”-Scheduled Caste is not disputed.
There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed
only on the ground that the victim was a member of the
Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-
accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not
sustainable.”
25. From the evidence of PW1, it is clear that he has not spoken
that, at the time of occurrence, the public were present and therefore, he
was humiliated. Further, the evidence of PW2 also discloses that PW2
came to the said place only after the occurrence. Therefore, he is not an
eyewitness to the said occurrence. Another eyewitness, said to have seen
__________
Page  16  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
the occurrence, Muthu, was not examined before the Trial Court.
26. Further, as per the case of the prosecution, the Accused have
abused him by saying, Vz;lh <dg; gwg;Gz;l kfNd> khl;Lf;fwp
jpd;Dk ; gwg;Gz;l kfNd> cd;idf; nfhy;yhky ; tplkhl;Nlhk;.
However, PW1 in his evidence stated that gwg; gay;fSf;F ,q;F
When PW1 questioned
vd;dlh ghij ,jpy; te;jh ntl;btpLNtd;.
A2 as to why he was speaking like this, A2 again abused him by saying,
A1 abused him by saying,
“ gwg;gaNy cd;id ntl;b tpLNtd;. ”
“ cd;id taYf;Fs ; ,wq;fp ghUlh gwf;$jp kfNd ” and
“ cd;id ,e;j rhjpf;fhuq;fs ,dp Nky; ,e;j njUtpy; elkhl
tplf;$lhJ ” .
27. Further, as per the case of the prosecution, all the four
Accused, abused him by saying Vz;lh <dg; gwg;Gz;l kfNd>
khl;Lf;fwp jpd;Dk ; gwg;Gz;l kfNd> cd;idf; nfhy;yhky;
tplkhl;Nlhk;. But the case of the prosecution is that all the Accused have
abused PW1 at a same time with same words cannot be believed at all.
Unless there is a common intention and common desire and a prior
meeting of minds, no two persons can utter the same words at a same
time. Absolutely, there is no evidence to show that there was a prior
__________
Page  17  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
meeting of minds between the Accused herein and P.W.1 that they
decided use the same words. Therefore, the said case itself appears to be a
doubtful one.
28. In view of the above, it is clear that the prosecution has failed
to prove the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act. Even
P.W.1 has not stated that Accused 3 and 4 have uttered abusive or
derogatory words against P.W.1. Therefore, the acquittal recorded by the
Trial Court as against A3 and A4 needs no interference.
29. It is the further case of the prosecution that all the Accused
threatened him by saying that they would not rest without murdering him.
P.W.1, in his evidence, deposed that gwg; gay;fSf;F ,q;F vd;dlh
ghij ,jpy ; te;jh ntl;btpLNtd; A1 abused him by saying,
.
cd;id taYf;Fs ; ,wq;fp ghUlh gwf;$jp kfNd and
“ ”
cd;id ,e;j rhjpf;fhuq;fs ,dp Nky; ,e;j njUtpy; elkhl
“
tplf;$lhJ However, the learned counsel for the Accused 1 and 2 has
”.
submitted that, due to the previous motive, P.W.1 has given a false
complaint against these Accused. According to the learned counsel for
the Accused 1 and 2, there was a delay of 28 days in lodging the
complaint. Further, he contended that P.W.1, in his cross-examination,
has admitted that, in respect of the complaint which was given by him
__________
Page  18  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
earlier, he and the Accused were interrogated. Therefore, according to the
learned counsel for the Accused 1 and 2, the original information was
suppressed.
30. Therefore, the learned counsel for the Accused 1 and 2
contended that the First Information Report, being the foundation of the
prosecution case, if it is found to be suspicious, then the entire case of the
prosecution will collapse. On careful perusal of the record, it is found that
the occurrence was said to have happened on 23.03.2012. Ex.P1
complaint was said to have been given only on 15.04.2012, with a delay
of 24 days. Absolutely, there is no explanation for this delayed
information. It is not the delay that will become fatal to the case of the
prosecution, but the unexplained delay will definitely be fatal to the case
of the prosecution.
31. The delay further assumes significance, when P.W.1, in his
cross-examination, has admitted that the earlier complaint given by him
was interrogated by the Police. Therefore, this Court finds that there is
strong force in the argument of the learned counsel for the Accused 1 and
2 that the original information was suppressed. Since the first information
itself becomes suspicious, as contended by the learned counsel for the
Accused 1 and 2, this Court is of the considered view that the first
__________
Page  19  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
information, being the foundation of the prosecution case, if it collapses,
the entire edifice of the prosecution case built upon the said first
information should also fall to the ground.
32. Further, the said First Information Report was registered only
on 21.08.2012, after the direction from this Court. There was a five-
month delay in registering the First Information Report. Further, on
careful perusal of Ex.P1 complaint, it is found that the victim has not
approached the Police for police protection. The delay in lodging the
complaint itself shows that P.W.1 has not taken the words uttered by
Accused 1 and 2 seriously. Therefore, it is clear from the conduct of
P.W.1 that he has displayed that he was not intimidated by the words
uttered by the Accused herein.
33. In this connection, i t is useful to refer to the judgment of this
Court reported in (1988) L.W.(Crl.)178 (Noble Mohandass V. State) and
the rele v ant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
“7. As far as the offence under Section 506(2) is concerned, the
learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that the
threat was not a real one, that it was of the kind of words which
are currently and frequently used by people when they are angry
and that further the threat was not spoken to by P.W. 3 and P.W.
4 who by that time had already come to the scene of occurrence.
__________
Page  20  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
It is, in fact, found from the records that the threat would
have been lashed out after P.Ws. 3 and 4 came to the place and
separated both the husband and wife. Therefore, the evidence of
P.W. 1 should have been corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3
and P.W. 4 who were necessary witnesses to the occurrence.
Since they did not corroborate the testimony of P.W. 1 in this
aspect, the offence cannot be held to be proved. Further for
being an offence under Section 506(2) which is rather an
important offence punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to seven years, the threat should be a real one and not
just a mere word when the person uttering it does exactly mean
what he says and also when the person at whom threat is
launched does not feel threatened actually. In fact P.W. 1 when
she filed the complaint to the police officer, did not express any
fear for her life nor asked for any protection. Therefore, the
offence under S. 506(2) is not made out.”
Therefore, it is clear that the threat should be a real one and not just a
mere word when the person uttering it does not exactly mean what he
says and also when the person at whom threat is launched does not feel
threatened actually. Hence, in the given circumstances, this Court is of
the considered view that Section 506(i) IPC is also not proved.
34. On careful perusal of evidence of PW1, it is found that it is not
the case of PW1 that the Accused 3 and 4 had waylaid him. Even
__________
Page  21  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
according to him, both of them have got a stick and chased him. He in his
cross examination admitted that they have not stated in his complaint
statement. Apart from that, the Investigation Officer has not recovered
any stick, which was said to have been used by Accused 3 and 4.
Therefore, the Trial Court has concluded that the offences charged
against Accused 3 and 4 are not proved. The victim has not brought any
material against Accused 3 and 4 also. Therefore, the acquittal recorded
in respect of Accused 3 and 4 needs to be confirmed.
35. In the result, the appeal in Criminal Appeal (MD) No.34 of
2019 is allowed. Accused 1 and 2 are acquitted of the charges punishable
under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act.
The fine amount paid if any is ordered to be refunded. The appeal in
Criminal Appeal (MD) No.284 of 2021 is dismissed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Indu
__________
Page  22  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
To
1. The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Thiruppathur Sub Division,
Thirukostiyur Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
2. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
Copy To :
Section Officer (VR Section )
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
__________
Page  23  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )

Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
S.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
Indu
Judgment made in
Crl.A(MD) Nos.34 of 2019 and 284 of 2021
05-11-2026
__________
Page  24  of  24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 07:01:03 pm )