The importance of considering contradictory evidence and giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, as well as the interpretation of the requirement of the act being committed within public view under Sec.3(1)(x) of S.C and S.T. Act.

The case of the prosecution is as follows: P.Ws.7 and 8 belong to Nathakoundapalayam at Palladam Taluk. They belong to Scheduled Caste and are living at Harijan Colony. The appellants also belong to the same village and they belong to Kongu Vellala, which is a backward class.

2. The first appellant was suspecting P.Ws.1, 7 and 8 for the theft of his TVS 50 Motorcycle. On 20.8.2005, around 11.00 a.m, P.Ws.1,7 and 8 were working in a coconut grove. The first appellant came to the place, assaulted P.W.1 and uttered "tz;o vd;dlh Mr;R rf;fpyp jha;nahHp;/". He dragged P.W.1 to his poultry farm. In the poultry farm, P.Ws.7 and 8 had already been confined by the appellants. The second appellant also joined with the first appellant and tortured P.Ws.1,7 and 8 and also assaulted them. They also abused their caste by uttering the humiliative word. P.W.1 gave a complaint dated 20.10.2005. The Sub Inspector of Police, Palladam Police Station received the complaint on 21.8.2005 and registered a case in Cr.No.934/2005 under Sec.342, 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 3(1)(X) of S.C and S.T. Act.

3. The Deputy Superintendent of Police investigated and proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared the magazar and also examined P.Ws.1,7,8,9. The witnesses were subjected for medical examination. The doctors who gave treatment were also examined by the investigating officer and wound certificate was also obtained. The Tahsildars of Dharapuram and Thiruppur were requested to give the Community Certificate for the witnesses as well as for the appellants. On completion of the investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Palladam laid a charge sheet for the offences under Secs.342, 323, 506(ii) IPC r/w 3(1)(x) S.C and S.T. Act. On committal, the case was transferred to Principal Sessions Judge, Special Court cum Principal Sessions Court, Coimbatore which was taken on file in S.C.No.15 of 2006.

4. On appearance of the appellants, the court framed charges and the appellants denied the same and opted for trial. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, 17 witnesses were examined, 14 documents were marked. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Special Court believed the evidence of P.Ws.1,7,8 and 9 and also relied on the medical evidence and found the appellants guilty for the charges leveled against them and convicted and passed the sentence as stated above.

5. Aggrieved by which, A.1 has preferred the appeal in C.A.No.534 of 2007 and A.2 has preferred the appeal in C.A.No. 582 of 2007.Though two different criminal appeals are filed, they are disposed of by a common judgment. The appellants are referred as 1st appellant and 2nd appellant.

6. Mr.K. Kalyanasundaram, learned counsel appearing for the first appellant submitted that the trial court has failed to note that the first appellant had already lodged a complaint against the witnesses on 19.8.2005 for the allegation of theft of his TVS Motor Cycle which has been registered in Cr.NO.935 of 2005. The learned counsel pointed out that P.W.1 has lodged the present complaint only on 20.8.2005 as a counter measure for implicating the appellant. The learned counsel also pointed out that the evidence of P.Ws.1,7 to 9 are false.

7. The learned counsel also pointed out that to attract Sec. 3(1)(x) of S.C.S.T Act, the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste ought to have been insulted or humiliated in the public view. The learned counsel pointed out that even according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place only in the poultry farm of P.W.1, which is not a public place.

8. Mr.B. Kumarasamy for Mr.S. Gunalan, the learned counsel appearing for the second appellant submitted that the trial court, having chosen to disbelieve the witnesses for the offence under Sec.3(1)(x) of S.C and S.T.Act, ought not to have believed their version for the alleged assault and criminal intimidation against the second appellant.

9. The learned counsel for the appellants relied on 1997 Crl.