1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and conviction made by the learned Special Sessions Judge, S.C./S.T. Act cases, Ulundurpet in S.S.C.No.68 of 2015, by judgment dated 09.09.2015.

2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 29.11.2010, at about 4.00 p.m., the accused persons had assaulted and scolded P.W.2 by making derogatory statement with an intention to insult and humiliate her in the public place, since he is a member of the Scheduled Caste.

3. Based on the alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 29.11.2010 at 4.00 p.m., P.W.2 has got admitted in a Government Hospital at Ulundurpet on the said day and taken treatment. Subsequently, it was claimed that, the P.W.2 had shifted to (Villupuram) Mundiampakkam Government Hospital, where, after having taken treatment for three to four days, P.W.1, husband of P.W.2 had given a complaint to the respondent police on 04.12.2010, based on which an FIR was registered and the case was investigated. After investigating the case, P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ulundurpet had laid the charge sheet against the accused persons for the alleged offences punishable under Section 323 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act].

4. The Trial Court, after having tried the matter, has given its judgment and conviction, by the impugned judgment dated 09.09.2015 whereby, the Trial Court has convicted the accused persons with one year imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and six months imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC. Aggrieved over the said judgment and conviction, the accused persons have preferred this appeal.

5. Before the trial court, on the side of the prosecution, eight witnesses were examined, seven exhibits were marked and there was no material object marked. On the side of the defendants, one exhibit was marked and there was no witness examined.

6. Mr.S.Saravana Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused has urged the following points in favour of the defence side:

(i) That P.W.1, complainant is not an eye witness as he was not along with P.W.2 during the alleged occurrence and therefore, what he has stated by way of complaint to the respondent police is only a hearsay. As such, the said complaint cannot be taken as a basis for building up the case against the accused persons.

(ii) Even though it was claimed that the occurrence took place on 29.11.2010 at 4.00 p.m., the FIR was registered by the respondent police only on 04.12.2010 and there is absolutely no reason stated for such a huge delay in registering the FIR on the side of the prosecution.

(iii) On the side of the prosecution, there were no independent witnesses and the witnesses who deposed before the trial court on the side of the prosecution i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.5 were either the defacto complainant or the alleged victim or the near and dear or relatives of P.W.1 and P.W.2.

(iv) The prosecution has not produced any evidence to show that P.W.2 had taken treatment at two hospitals for four days and that is the reason, there was a delay in filing the FIR.

(v) As per the evidence of P.W.8, the Investigating Officer, the prosecution has not enquired anyone in the locality of the alleged occurrence place. Out of the five prosecution witnesses i.e., P.W.1 to P.W.5, except P.W.2 no one had claimed that, they were in the scene of occurrence or in the nearby area.

(vi) Even the wound certificate produced on the side of the prosecution marked as Ex.P3 does not disclose whether P.W.2 had taken treatment as an inpatient in Ulundurpet hospital.

(vii) P.W.6, Doctor, who claimed to have treated P.W.2, had not deposed that after one day treatment, P.W.2 had been referred to Villupuram hospital.

7. By raising the aforesaid grounds, the learned counsel for the appellants argued before this Court that, absolutely there is