The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish mens rea for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the duty of the prosecution to present complete materials.

This appeal has been filed by the accused challenging the conviction and sentence passed under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under which the accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. This judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

2. Brief facts:

P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. On 19.11.2009 in the evening, he boarded a Government bus at Pattukottai along with P.W.2-Senthamilchelvan and P.W.7-Subramanian and they were all travelling to Mogur. When the bus was nearing Mogur, P.W.1 requested the conductor to stop the bus at Mogur bus stop. The conductor had told P.W.1 that due to shortage of time, they won't stop the bus. Thereupon, P.W.1 insisted that it should be stopped only at that place. It is stated that the accused who was being seated nearby the driver, scolded P.W.1 by invoking the caste name. P.W.1 responded to the comment saying that the accused has no authority to say about the stopping of the bus in the bus stop. The driver of the bus did not stop the bus, and he stopped the bus in the next bus stop. When P.W.1 got down from the bus, the accused attempted to assault P.W.1 with chappal, saying that he cannot dictate the conductor to stop the bus. Thereafter, P.Ws.1, 2 and 7 and the students who travelled in the bus, went to the Police Station and P.W.1 gave a complaint. The complaint given by P.W.1 was received by P.W.5-Gunasekaran, Head Constable and he registered a case in Crime No.334 of 2009 under Sections 294(b) of IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereupon, P.W.8-Zonal Deputy Tahsildar issued Community Certificate that P.W.1 belongs to the community which is coming under Schedule Caste. Thereafter, P.W.9-Deputy Superintendent of Police followed by P.W.10-Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up further investigation and after completion of investigation, P.W.10 laid the final charge sheet against the accused on 23.02.2010.

3. Before the Trial Court, the prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and marked 7 documents. Relying upon the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7, the Court came to the conclusion that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is made out against the accused.

4. Whether the findings given by the Court below are sustainable, is the issue raised in this appeal.

5. The main ground of appeal in this case is that the Trial Court ought to have found that there is no intention or mens rea for the accused to have humiliated P.W.1 using the caste name, in the alleged occurrence and therefore the Court below ought not to have believed the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 7.

5.1. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of this Court in Sekar v. State, reported in 2012 (1) MWN (Cr.) 87, wherein it has been held that existence of mens rea or criminal intention is very much essential and in the absence of an intention, no offence is made out under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

5.2. So far as this case is concerned, there is no explanation as to how the accused person could have known the caste of the prosecution witnesses. Nowhere it is alleged that either they were friends or they belong to the same village or they are neighbours or they were known to each other at any point of time. In the absence of such evidence, the contention that the accused used abusive language involving the caste, cannot be believed. The dictum laid down in the above case is applicable to the facts of this case and therefore, the prosecution, as against this accused person under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is not maintainable.

6. P.Ws.1 and 2 are stated