1. Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. The appellant was charged for offences punishable under Sections 323, 427 and 294(b) I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act of 1989'). After an elaborate trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 323 and 427 I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 and imposed sentences on him. The appellant was acquitted of the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up in appeal.

2. Case against the appellant, as borne out from Ext.P1 First Information Statement and the Final report, is as follows :

Appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On account of his animosity towards PW1, who is a member of Hindu Pulaya Community, a Scheduled Caste in the State, at about 12 hours in the noon on 22-12-1997, the appellant intentionally insulted her within public view by abusing her in filthy language and calling her caste name. Further, the appellant voluntarily caused hurt to PW1 by beating with hand on her head. Appellant pulled her down on to the road dragging her by hair. Appellant fisted and kicked her on left buttock and left shoulder with an intention to humiliate her and also caused loss of Rs.300/- to her. To substantiate this prosecution case, PW's 1 to 13 were examined. Exts.P1 to P9 are the documents marked. DW1 is the witness cited by the defence. Ext.D1 is the document relied on by the defence. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. Learned Sessions Judge meticulously considered the oral evidence adduced in this case. PW1 is the injured/defacto complainant. It is her definite case that the appellant enticed her married daughter on the pretext of love and later she committed suicide. In connection with that incident, the appellant and PW1 were at loggerheads. On the date of occurrence, she went to the Government Hospital, Vannapuram to get medicines as she was unwell. Thereafter, she went to a bank for redeeming gold ornaments pledged. At that time, PW4 also accompanied her. PW4 is her brother's daughter. The appellant is a head load worker. When they reached the High range Junction, the appellant was found standing by the side of the road. On seeing PW1, the appellant without any provocation started abusing her by using obscene words. On hearing the filthy words, PW1 reacted by saying that the appellant was responsible for the death of her daughter. Infuriated by her words, the appellant intensified the shower of abuse on her in front of general public. Thereafter, he physically assaulted her by beating and pulling down her by catching the lock of hair. He torn the saree and blouse worn by the appellant. Her case that gold ornament worn by her was lost in the melee was not accepted by the trial court for want of evidence. PW1 deposed that the appellant pretended love to her daughter. Later, she was given in marriage to another man. Appellant used to visit the matrimonial home of her daughter and caused lot of problems. Then PW1's daughter was lured to go along with the appellant to Payyannoor and they lived for sometime as husband and wife. On 10-02-1997 she consumed poison and committed suicide. PW1 alleged that it was on account of the appellant's misdeeds she lost her daughter. Fact remains clear that both PW1 and appellant were enemical to one another.

5. PW1 was subjected to tough cross examination. It was suggested in cross examination that PW1 was in the habit of filing false cases against all persons, including the appellant. She stoutly denied all the suggestions. In spite of challenges raised in cross examination, her version that the appellant abused her and physically assaulted her remain credible. PW1 stated that PW4 also witnessed the incident.

6. PW4 is the niece of PW1. It is her assertion that she accomp