None of the alleged acts committed by petitioner falls under the category of SC/ST Act.

The petitioner is the same in both the petitions.

Criminal O.P. No. 3608 of 2004 is with respect to Crime No. 77 of 2003, on the file of the Inspector of Police, Koodankulam Police Station. According to the prosecution, the petitioner poured acid on Jeenakumari and her friend Lawra on 31-3-2003 at about 8.30 a.m. when they entered into Raja Pharmacy College at Tirunelveli. Since Jeenakumari belongs to Scheduled Caste community, complaint has been registered under Sections 328, 352, 506(1), IPC and 3(1)(x) and 3(1) (xii) SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act.

Crl. O.P. Nos. 3623 of 2004 is with respect to Crime No. 43 of 2003 on the file of Thuckalay Police Station. According to the prosecution, the petitioner threw bleaching powder on the face of Jeenakumari on 14-1-2003. Therefore, a complaint has been registered under Sections 328, 352 and 506(1), IPC and 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The petitioner surrendered in both the cases on 5-6-2003. From that day onwards, he is in jail. Later on, he was also detained under Act 14 of 1982. But, the detention order was set aside by this Court. Therefore, the present petitions have been filed for release of the petitioner on bail.

Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the prosecution has not come forward with full facts and most of them have been hidden. The F.I.R. in both the cases does not contain full particulars. The learned counsel further submits that the injured persons were not referred to Government Hospital on any date. The wound Certificates relied upon by the prosecution are Certificate issued by a private doctor by name Dr. T. Thiraviam, he is an Orthopaedic Surgeon. The doctor, who treated the victims, has not even stated before the Investigating Officer as to the nature of treatment given by him to the victim girls. If really acid was poured on the face of Jeenakumari, then the treatment given to her should be filed as an evidence and the case sheet should have been seized by the prosecution. There is no statement recorded from Dr. Thiraviam. In the intimation sent by the doctor to the police with respect of injured Lawra, a friend of Jeenakumari, it is stated as "assault injury". The information sent to the police does not contain that the victims sustained injuries due to pouring of acid. Therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is not supported by the materials available on record. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled for bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) submits that the assailant has been identified by independent witnesses, one of them is a lecturer of the College, and the other is a student, who also travelled along with Jeenakumari in the bus and alighted from the bus and entered into the College at the time of the incident. All the witnesses identified the assailant. Apart from that, the watchman has also identified the petitioner as the assailant. Therefore, there is no doubt as to the identification of the accused. Moreover, the doctor has also given a Certificate stating that the injured have suffered due to acid attack. Hence, there is a prima facie case against the petitioner. Considering the fact that the petitioner has poured acid on the face of the victims, he is not entitled for bail.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl. side) has produced the case diary of this case.

On perusal of the case diary, it is seen that the occurrence with respect to acid attack is alleged to have taken place at 8.30 a.m. on 31-3-2003. Immediately, they were taken to the private hospital run by Dr. Thiraviam, who after treating them, sent an intimation to the police. In that intimation it is stated that Lawra was said to have been "assaulted", whereas Jeenakumari is said to have sustained "assault injury". This intimation was despatched at 9.35 hrs. The F.I.R has been registered at 9.35 hrs. on the same day. There is no reference to any "acid attack" or that "acid" being thrown