Requirement of quantum and nature of proof for rebuttal of presumption.

This is a criminal revision case filed by P.W. 2 Baste Subrayalu/complainant in C.C. No. 234 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry, against the judgment of the said Court in the said case dated 27-11-1982 finding the accused not guilty of the offence under S. 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (Act No. 22 of 1955), read with S. 34, I.P.C., and acquitting all the accused/respondents 1 to 6 herein. The State of Pondicherry represented by the Station House Officer, C.I.D. Branches, Pondicherry (Crime No. 11 of 1982) is the 7th respondent in this criminal revision case. A.1 Robert Mariadassou, A.2 Antoine, A.3 Lourde Marinathan alias Jayabal, A.4 Sagayanathan, A.5 Arokiamary and A.6 Ponnusundaram are respondents 1 to 6 in this criminal revision case, and they are all residing at No. 6, Saint Roserio Street, Muthialpet Pondicherry A.1 to A.4 are the sons of Selvarasu alias Selvanathan. A.5 is the wife of A.3 Lourde Marinathan alias Jayabal. A.6 is the wife of Selvarasu alias Selvanathan.

2. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Crime Investigation Department, Pondicherry, has laid to charge-sheet against the accused for an offence under S. 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :- On 22-5-1982 at about 10 a.m., when P.W. 1 Vasantha alias Vasanthakumari was alone in her house, A.2 Antoine and A.3 Lourde Marianathan alias Jayapal came and cut the 'othian' tree belonging to P.W. 1, and when question, A.1 Robert Mariadassou came there and said (Matter in vernacular omitted)

Meanwhile, A.4, A.5 and A.6 came to the scene and they also abused in insulted P.W. 1 saying (Matter in vernacular omitted). Then, P.Ws. 3 to 5 came there and they asked the accused as to why they insulted P.W. 1 in the absence of her parents. For that, all the accused scolded them also. Then P.Ws. 3 to 5 advised P.W. 1 to go home and report to her father after his return. Then at about 1 p.m., P.W. 2 (P.W. 1's father) returned home. P.W. 1 narrated him as to what had happened. Then P.W. 2 went to the police station at about 5 p.m., and lodged a complaint - Ex. P. 1 to the Sub-Inspector of Police, Muthialpet Police Station (P.W. 7) who has registered a case in Crime No. 78 of 1982 under S. 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955

4. On the point, whether all the accused insulted P.W. 1 Vasantha alias Vasanthakumari, on the ground of untouchability, the lower Court discussed the evidence on record and came to the conclusion that the accused are not guilty of the offence under S. 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, read with S. 34, I.P.C., and acquitted all the accused. Aggrieved by the above decision of the lower Court, the complainant - P.W. 2 Baste Subrayalu has come forward with this criminal revision case.

5. Mr. G. Masilamani, learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein, inter alia, contends that the lower Court had not properly appreciated the evidence available on record and as such the judgment of the lower Court acquitting the accused is not correct and in accordance with law.

6. The point for consideration in this criminal revision case is whether there is any infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court.

7. Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, (Act No. 22 of 1955) provides that whoever insults or attempts to insult, on the ground of "untouchability" a member of a Scheduled Caste, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term of not less than one month and not more than six months, and also with fine which shall be not less than one hundred rupees and not more than five hundred rupees.

8. In "The Concise Oxford Dictionary", the meaning of the word "insult" is given as 'treat with scornful abuse'; 'offer indignity to'; (of person or thing) 'affront'.

9. In the Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary

", the meaning of the word "insult" is given as 'to assail'; 'to triumph ins