Chellammal v. The Deputy Superintendent Of
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 20.09.2018 DELIVERED ON : 05.10.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN Crl.A(MD)No.428 of 2018 Chellammal .. Appellant / Accused rank not known Vs.
1.The State through the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub-Division, Sivagangai District.
2.The State rep by The Inspector of Police, Pazhayanoor Police Station, Sivagangai District.
(in Crime No.32 of 2018) .. 1 & 2 Respondents/ Complainant 3.Maheswaran .. 3rd Respondent/ de facto Complainant Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as amended by Act 1 of 2016, to set aside the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.3237 of 2018 dated 07.09.2018 by the Special Court for exclusive trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sivagangai and to enlarge the petitioner/accused on bail in connection with the case in Crime No.32 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police. For Appellant :Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandain For R1 & R2 :Mr.K.Chellapandian, Additional Advocate General Assisted by:
Mr.A.Robinson, Government Advocate (Crl.side) For R3 : Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh
J U D G E M E N T This Criminal Appeal is filed by one of the accused facing trial in Special Case No.32 of 2018 before the Special Court for Exclusive trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sivagangai. The brief facts leading to the present bail petition are as below:-
2. Katchanatham Village of Manamadurai Taluk at Sivagangai District is a small hamlet, mostly inhabited by people belonging to the Schedule Caste (SC) community. One family of this hamlet and villagers surrounding this hamlet belong to other community. It appears that there was a personal feud between that one family, belonging to the non-SC Community and the members of the SC Community.
3. On 31.07.2017, the members of the SC Community have given a complaint to the District Collector, alleging that Suman, son of Chandrakumar, is causing disturbance to the members of the SC Community and they are threatening their lives. They have made a specific allegation of events which had taken place in the village on 02.07.2017, 17.07.2017, 18.07.3017 and 29.07.2017 which are cause for their fear. The said representation was given to the District Collector seeking protection for their lives and properties by one Mr.M.Sundaram and nine other villagers. It appears that, thereafter, when the temple festival was conducted on 25.05.2018, Chandrakumar of non-SC community had picked a quarrel with one Shanmuganathan of SC Community. As a result, on 26.05.2018, Shanmuganathan has lodged a complaint against Chandrakumar and others. Consequently, Chandrakumar was enquired by the police.
4. The case under consideration is in respect of the unfortunate event which had taken place on 25.05.2018 at about 09.00 p.m. As per the F.I.R., a case was registered based on the complaint given by Maheswaran, son of Bhoominathan. On 28.05.2018, 17 named accused and others armed with deadly weapons attacked Shanmuganathan, Arumugam, Dhanasekaran and others. The roof of the victim's residence was damaged by the mob. The said clash has resulted in the death of three persons and injuries to five others, besides damage to the properties of the SC community people. A case has been registered against 17 named persons and other unknown persons on 29.05.2018 at 05.00 hrs for offence under Sections 147, 148 , 294(b), 324, 307 and 302 I.P.C. and Section 3 of Public Property Damage and Loss Act, 1992 and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3 (2)(va) of the Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant is an innocent person and she has been falsely implicated in this case, based on the statement of the co-accused.
6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State would submit that the witness has spoken about the role of the appellant herein in the crime, besides the gruesome murder committed by the accused persons which does not deserve any sympathy in considering the bail petition. Taking into consideration the larger interest of the public, the appellant herein is not entitled for bail. Further, the learned counsel would also submit that if the appellant is released on bail, she will be a threat to the witnesses and the victim.
7. As far as the learned counsel appearing for the victim, it is his prime concern that the entire attack on the SC community people was pursuant to the complaint given by the villagers seeking protection from the expected on slot. Despite seeking protection, the police and revenue people have failed to give protection which has resulted in gruesome murder of three persons and brutal attack on others. So none of the accused persons should be released on bail so as to protect the victims and witnesses.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Advocate General for the State and learned counsel appearing for the victim and also perused the records placed before this Court.
9. On considering the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that undoubtedly the incident is a very inhuman brutal attack on the targeted community. This has to be viewed very seriously in the light of social interest. However, when certain names are included as accused merely based on co-accused but not mentioned by the eye witness or the de facto complainant, their personal liberty has to be taken note.
10. A fair opportunity has to be given to them to defend themselves by engaging a learned counsel of their choice. The balancing act between individual liberty and larger interest of the public has to be struck. This can be done by assessing the prima facie materials placed by the prosecution against the accused person and overtact attributed against them and also the antecedent and likelihood of tampering the witnesses.
11. As far as the appellant is concerned, being a lady no serious allegations are made against her except causing damage to the victim's house tiles and television sets. So, she may be released on bail on stringent conditions. Accordingly, bail is granted and the Criminal Appeal is allowed on the following conditions:- (i) the appellant shall be enlarged on bail on executing a bond for Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only), with two sureties, one must be a close blood relative, for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, Sivagangai;
(ii) she will report before the Curator, Mahatma Gandhi Museum, Madurai, on the first Thursday of every English calendar month at 10.00 am., and stay at Gandhi Museum till 05.00 pm., to learn the teaching of Mahatma. (iii) she shall not enter her village till the disposal of the trial on any account and she shall participate in the trial without fail.
(iv) she shall not tamper with investigation or trial; and (v) on breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned trial Judge is entitled to take appropriate action, as if the conditions have been imposed and the appellant released on bail by the trial Judge himself as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs State of Kerala in 2005 AIR SCW 5560.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.O) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) To 1.The Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases under SC/ST (POA), Act, 1989, Sivagangai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai Sub-Division, Sivagangai District.
3.The Inspector of Police, Pazhayanoor Police Station, Sivagangai District.
4.The Superintendent Central Prison for Women, Madurai.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1cc to Mr.M.Jegadees Pandiyan, Advocate in SR NO.89031
+1cc to Mr.G.Bhagavath Singh, Advocate in SR No.89229 Copy to The Curator, Mahatma Gandhi Museum, Madurai.
Crl.A(MD)No.428 of 2018 NM/SKN/SAR 4/09.10.18/5P/9C