Madras HC Acquits Two Men Of Caste-Abuse And Threat Charges, Citing Unexplained 24-Day Delay And Unproduced SC/ST Probe Appointment Order

The prosecution alleged that, following a land dispute, the accused waylaid PW1, a member of the Hindu Paraiyar community, abused him by reference to his caste, and threatened to kill him.

The Trial Court convicted Accused 1 and 2 under Section 506(i) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but acquitted them under Section 341 IPC; it acquitted Accused 3 and 4 of all charges.

Accused 1 and 2 appealed their convictions, while PW1 appealed the acquittals of Accused 3 and 4.

The judgment refers to the alleged occurrence as 23.08.2012 in its summary but as 23.03.2012 in its account of PW1’s evidence and its discussion of delay.

Rule 7(1) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 requires investigation of an offence under the Act by a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, appointed by the competent authority after considering the officer’s experience and ability.

Relying on State of M.P. v. Chunnilal @ Chunni Singh, the Court stated that failure to appoint the investigating officer in accordance with Rule 7 vitiates the investigation insofar as offences under the Act are concerned, but not the investigation of IPC offences.

For Section 3(1)(x), the Court applied the requirement that the alleged insult or intimidation occur in a place within public view, distinguishing that concept from a public place, as explained in Swaran Singh and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand.

For Section 506(i) IPC, it relied on Noble Mohandass v. State for the principle that the threat must be real and intended to cause alarm, rather than a mere angry utterance.

The prosecution did not produce the Superintendent of Police’s appointment proceedings for PW17, so the Court held that compliance with Rule 7 had not been established and that the investigation could not sustain the charge under the SC/ST Act.

The Court also found that PW1 did not say that members of the public were present when the alleged caste-based abuse occurred; PW2 arrived after the occurrence, and the other alleged eyewitness, Muthu, was not examined.

The Court further considered the differing accounts of the words allegedly used and the absence of evidence that Accused 3 and 4 uttered caste-based abuse.

As to criminal intimidation, it treated the delay in giving the complaint, the subsequent registration of the FIR after a court direction, and the absence of a request for police protection as circumstances undermining the allegation that the threats caused genuine alarm.

The evidence that Accused 3 and 4 chased PW1 with a stick was also unsupported by the complaint and by any recovery of a stick.

It dismissed Crl.A.(MD) No. 284 of 2021, leaving the acquittals of Accused 3 and 4 undisturbed.

The Trial Court’s acquittal of Accused 1 and 2 under Section 341 IPC was not challenged in PW1’s appeal.