Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Madras at Madurai, Single Bench of Justice Dr. R.N. Manjula allowed a Criminal Miscellaneous Petition filed by a convicted appellant seeking suspension of his sentence and enlargement on bail. The Court granted interim relief pending the disposal of the appeal, stating that there was no immediate possibility of hearing the appeal and that the petitioner had made out a case for bail. Simultaneously, the Court issued notable administrative directions to the District Collector of Tenkasi to prevent caste-based discrimination in accessing drinking water.

This judgment followed an appeal against a conviction under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The petitioner had been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment along with a monetary fine. In addition to granting bail, the Court addressed the systemic issue of inequitable water access raised by the defacto complainant and urged authorities to implement fair and inclusive measures.

Also Read: "Section 26 of AP Reorganisation Act Must Yield to Article 170(3); No Premature Delimitation Permissible": Supreme Court Upholds Constitutional Bar and Rejects Plea for Increased Assembly Seats in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana

The Court noted that access to safe drinking water is integral to the right to life and must be available to all communities without discrimination, reinforcing this principle through direct orders to local officials.

The appellant, the sole accused, was convicted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tenkasi in S.C. No. 281 of 2025, dated 11.06.2025. He was charged under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2) (va), and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.

The prosecution case stated that on 03.12.2016 at approximately 5:00 p.m., the accused allegedly approached the agricultural fields of PW1 and PW2. The prosecution contended that the accused used caste-based abusive language and threatened the complainants with death. According to the prosecution, this act was a result of pre-existing animosity.

Following the trial, the Sessions Court convicted the accused under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000, with a default sentence of one-month simple imprisonment. He was acquitted of charges under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act and Section 506(2) IPC.

Challenging the conviction, the appellant filed an appeal in CRL A(MD) No. 712 of 2025 and concurrently filed CRL MP(MD) No. 8288 of 2025 seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the alleged incident took place within the private agricultural lands of the complainant and not in a public setting, which is an essential element of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC/ST Act. This distinction, the counsel claimed, was not adequately considered by the trial court.

The prosecution, represented by the Government Advocate (Criminal Side), opposed the bail plea, stating that the defacto complainant had expressed fear regarding the accused’s release, citing possible threats during her routine visits to a public water tap located on the same street as the accused’s residence.

Despite these objections, the petitioner’s counsel assured the court that the appellant would not confront or disturb the defacto complainant in any manner—either by signs, words, or actions. The counsel also stated that the appellant undertook not to interfere with or cause any distress to the complainant.

The trial court had previously granted an interim suspension of sentence, which remained in effect during the consideration of the bail petition.

The Court recorded that "even as per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence has not taken place in any public view and it has taken place in the lands of the complainant and that was ignored by the learned trial Judge." It further noted, "a specific charge has been framed under 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act and the trial Court has found the accused not guilty and acquitted." The Bench commented that the interpretation of "public view" had been inconsistently applied by the trial court.

The Court recognized that the accused had "made out a ground for appeal" and pointed out that the immediate hearing of the appeal was unlikely. Thus, it was deemed appropriate to suspend the substantive sentence of imprisonment pending appeal, subject to conditions.

While addressing the concerns raised by the defacto complainant regarding water access, the Court remarked: "Persons who belong to Scheduled caste community have to wait to take their share of little water from the public tap until the water needs of the other communities are fulfilled."

The Court recorded that such conditions persist despite legal protections, stating, "It is surprising and pathetic to note in this scientific age, that some communities needs to compete with the other communities and stand second in order to get their share from the resources dedicated to the public good."

Further, the Bench stated: "It may not be easier to remove the class or caste mentality in the minds of certain individuals that easily. But people in authority cannot be mute spectators and be indifferent to these tales."

On the broader implications of such issues, the Court remarked: "Democracy assures rule of law not the rule of the mighty. A fragile old woman of 65 years, laments before this Court that the days have not changed and they are still facing the oppression at the hands of other community even in the matter of sharing of the common resources like water."

The Court concluded on this issue by stating that "the entitlement to get uncontaminated good water is a visage of right to life and hence it is a fundamental right."

The Court ordered that "the substantive part of the sentence of imprisonment alone is suspended" and granted bail on the following conditions:

"That the petitioner shall execute a bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tenkasi."

"That the petitioner shall appear before the said Court once in a month (i.e., on the first working day of every English Calendar month) at 10.30 a.m. till the disposal of appeal."

Also Read: Kerala High Court | No Stamp Duty On Sale Certificates Issued After Auction By Banks Or Authorities

In response to the grievances expressed by the defacto complainant, the Court further directed:

"To direct the District Collector, Tenkasi to take appropriate steps to ensure that such discrimination shall not be the order of the day in the said Thalaivankottai village."

"To take steps to provide sufficient number of water tap connections with sufficient water supply in all the streets by making it clear those connections are for everyone’s use, irrespective of their community and no one shall be allowed to take unduly plenty of water to the detriment or deprivation of the other or claim any ownership that any particular tap belongs to one particular community only."

The Court instructed that a copy of the order be sent to the District Collector of Tenkasi for compliance and required a report by 31.07.2025.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Mr. V. Kathirvelu, Senior Counsel for Mr. K. Prabhu

For the Respondents: Mr. K. Gnanasekaran, Government Advocate (Criminal Side)

Case Title: Thirumalaisamy v. The State of Tamil Nadu and Another

Case Number: CRL MP(MD) No. 8288 of 2025 in CRL A(MD) No. 712 of 2025

Bench: Justice Dr. R.N. Manjula