Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 CRL.A NO. 1729 OF 2023 CRIME NO.155/2023 OF AGALI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD IN CRMP 1781/2023 OF SPECIAL COURT-TRIAL OF OFFENCE UNDER SC/ST(POA) ACT, 1989, MANNARKKAD APPELLANTS/ACCUSED 6 AND 7: 1 DEEPA AGED 36 YEARS W/O KANNAN, VAKKAYIL HOUSE, AGALI (P.O), ATTAPADI TRIBAL TALUK, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678851 2 SUMATHI AGED 57 YEARS D/O CHINNASWAMY, AGALI OORU, ATTAPADI TRIBAL TALUK, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678851 BY ADVS. JIKKU SEBAN GEORGE DEEPTI SUSAN GEORGE P.D.SAJI RESPONDENTS/STATE AND DEFACTO COMPLAINANT: 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031 2 DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE- SMS & AGALI SUB DIVISION AGALI, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678851 3 CHANDRAN AGED 45 YEARS S/O MAYANDI, PUTHANPRA VEEDU, CHEMMANNUR, KALLAMALA, PALAKKAD, PIN - 678582 ADV.SEENA C. -PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.12.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 01st day of December, 2023
Order dated 06.10.2023 of the Special Court for SC/ST
(POA) Act, Mannarkkad, dismissing application for anticipatory
bail filed by the appellants is under challenge in this appeal filed under Section 14 A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The court below considered the matter in detail and
came to the conclusion that involvement of the petitioners in commission of the offence punishable under 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is made out. The allegations are that accused Nos.1 to 7 reached the house of the defacto complainant and involved into altercation in relation to the matrimonial dispute between the daughter of the defacto complainant and the 1 st accused. In that course, the daughter of the defacto complainant was allegedly manhandled and when intervened the defacto complainant was also assaulted. There is allegation that the injuries were inflicted to them using dangerous weapons such as knife and wooden stick.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the incident had occurred following an altercation which followed a mediation talk and no intentional act, particularly, on the part of the appellants who are accused Nos.6 and 7 can be inferred. They are persons incidentally became members of the group against which accusation is now raised. They, in fact, did not have any role in the incident. Both appellants are women. The 1st appellant is the wife of the 2nd accused and 2nd appellant is a neighbour. The learned counsel accordingly would submit that no prima facie case that they committed the offence under the SC/ST Act is made out, in which event only they can be denied the benefit of Section 438 of the Code.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that in
the FI statement itself the complicity of the appellants are stated and when the role in the commission of the offence is thus evident, bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST Act certainly is attracted.
6. I have gone through the FI statement and case diary.
It is seen that the appellants also had participated in the acts of attacking the defacto complainant and his daughter. It may be true that they happened to be parties to the said group with an intention to attack the defacto complainant. But when it is prima facie evident that the 1 st accused was in possession of knife and all the accused together reached the house of the defacto complainant in his company, it cannot be said that the allegations are prima facie incorrect. Therefore, the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is attracted to this case.
7. As stated, the appellants might not have any
preconceived intention at to commit any of the alleged offences. They, in all probabilities would have become part of the offending group on account of the latent turn of events following the mediation talk and the altercation. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that while dismissing the appeal, there shall be a direction to the Investigating Officer that if the appellants surrender before him, to complete the interrogation and other necessary process of investigation and produce them before the Special Court on the same day. In the event of such production and filing a bail application, after giving its copy to the Special Prosecutor, the Special Court shall decide the application for bail on the same day, as far as possible. Sd/- P.G.AJITHKUMAR JUDGE SMF