JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused challenging the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Kolar in Special C.C.No.24/2018 dated 2.4.2019.

2. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-accused and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent No.1State. Though notice is served to respondent No.2, he has remained absent.

3. Brief facts of the case are that due to the earlier vengeance between the complainant and one Chandrappa, accused being the President of Human Rights Committee had held panchayath and in this regard he collected phone number of the wife of complainant and used to make phone calls to the wife of the complainant Smt.Deepika. As such, on 11.8.2017 at about 11.30 a.m. the complainant had been to the office of the Human Rights Committee and enquired the appellant-accused and there was verbal exchange of words between them. At that time, appellant-accused held the collar of the complainant, pushed him and caused hurt to him. He also said to have abused him in filthy language with an intention to provoke the complainant to break public peace and thereby committed criminal intimidation threatening to kill the complainant. He also said to have used abusive language by taking the name of his caste. On the basis of the said complaint, a case has been registered in Crime No.284/2017. After investigation, charge sheet has been filed for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act. The Special Court took cognizance of the offence and secured the presence of the accused. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. As such, case was posted for trial. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined 7 witnesses and got marked 6 documents. During the course of crossexamination, the defence got marked Ex.D1. Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. He denied the incriminating material and not led any evidence. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Court below holding that there is a prima facie material as against the accused, by impugned order convicted him for the above said offences. Assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order, the appellant-accused is before this Court.

4. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-accused is that the conviction order is not sustainable in law. P.W.1 being the complainant, in his evidence has categorically deposed that the conversation of the accused and wife of the complainant has been recorded and the said recording has been given to the police. But the same has not been produced before the Court. It is his submission that in view of the panchayath held earlier, there were disputes between the parties and only with an intention to take vengeance a false complaint has been filed. It is his further submission that the alleged incident has not taken place in a public place and nobody was present on the date of the alleged incident. As such, Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is not applicable to the case on hand. It is his further submission that though P.Ws.2 and 6 are said to be the eyewitnesses to the incident, P.W.2 has not supported the case of prosecution and P.W.6 is an interested witness and friend of the complainant and even he has not gone to the rescue of the complainant at the time of galata. It is his further submission that though there is no ample material to connect the accused to the alleged crime, the trial Court by overlooking all the evidence, has erroneously come to a wrong conclusion in convicting the accused. On these grounds, he prayed to allow the appeal and to set aside the impugned order and to acquit the appellant-accused.

5. Percontra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1