Only person named and appointed after considering his past experience, ability and sense of justice, is competent to investigate cases involving caste discrimination.

(Criminal Appeal preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., as against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24.8.1999 rendered in Sessions Case No.105 of 1998 by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur.)

The accused No.1 and 2 in Sessions Case No.105 of 1998 on the file of the Court of II Additional Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur are the appellants.

2. Upon the complaint by P.W.1-Soundararajan, P.W.8-the Sub Inspector of Police registered a case in Cr.No.11/1996, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), as per the FIR-Ex.P.4. Pursuant to the registration of the case, P.W.8 examined some witnesses, recorded the statements, then submitted the investigation report for further investigation to the Inspector of Police, who has been examined as P.W.9. When P.W.9 completed his investigation, by examining P.Ws.1 to 8, it was brought to his knowledge that this kind of case should be investigated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and therefore, he submitted the files to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who has been examined as P.W.10.

3. P.W.10, though examined the witnesses examined by P.Ws.8 and 9, has not recorded any independent statements. Then, obtaining the community certificates of the accused, as well as the alleged victim and after completing the investigation, when he re-assessed the materials, it brought to surface that all the accused, being the members of other caste, had intentionally insulted P.W.1, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community, that too, within public view. Therefore, he has laid a final report, leading to trial, in view of the fact, the accused denied the charges, which ended in acquittal of A.3 and conviction of A.1 and A.2 and sentencing them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/=, in default to undergo further RI for three months each, which is challenged in this appeal by A.1 and A.2.

4. Heard Mr. M. Arulselvam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.J.C.Durairaj, learned Government Advocate (criminal side) for the respondent/State.

5. Mr. M. Arulselvam, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove

(i) that the alleged offence had taken place within public view that too, in order to intentionally insult or intimidate P.W.1, who belongs to Scheduled Caste;

(ii) that the inordinate delay, in preferring complaint, is not at all explained, which should create a doubt, as if the case is motivated, foisted falsely because of the admitted civil dispute;

(iii) that the evidence adduced to prove the insult, said to have been committed by the accused, also failed to serve the purpose, since they are not only self-contradictory, but also mutually destructive and this being the position, depending upon their evidence, convicting the appellants/A.1 and A.2 should be held an impossibility and that

(iv) a mandatory Rule viz. Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') has not been followed in this case, which should lead to the only conclusion, that the entire proceedings is vitiated.

On the above points, elaborating the same, applying the provisions of law then and there, taking me through the evidence, in depth, a strong submission was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to give relief to the appellants, since this is a motivated case, which was also conceded by the trial Court to some extent, since A.3 was acquitted on the same evidence, holding it undependable.

6. The learned Government Advocate (criminal side), while responding to the above submissions, would submit that the oral evidence, tendered by the witnesses, is proof sufficient, in establishing the guilt of the accused and that since the investigation was do