(Prayer: This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., against the judgment and order in S.C.No.146 of 2011 dated 09.03.2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Cuddalore acquitting the accused/respondents 2 and 3 from the alleged offence under Section 297(1), 323 I.P.C., and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.)

1. The revision petitioner herein is the defacto - complainant, examined as PW-1 in S.C.No.146/2011, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The Criminal Revision is preferred against the order of acquittal of the trial Court holding the respondents 2 and 3 not guilty of the charges under sections 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

2. The defacto complainant who is the victim of crime, aggrieved by the order of acquittal of respondents 2 and 3, is entitled for preferring appeal as per the proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. Un aware of his right, he has preferred the Criminal Revision. This Court being satisfied that the petition for criminal revision is filed on the erroneous belief that, no appeal lies, in the interest of justice, this Court treats this petition for Criminal Revision as Criminal Appeal, by exercising the power under section 401(5) of Cr.P.C and proceed to deal with the petition accordingly.

3. The revision petitioner herein has given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Ramanantham on 26/12/2010 alleging that he mortgaged his 1.11 cents of land in Survey No.311 for Rs.20,000/- to one Malarkodi w/o Narayanasamy. He already repaid Rs.10,000/-. On 26/12/2010 at about 8.15 hrs when he went to the house of Malarkodi and made offer to pay the balance Rs.10,000/- and asked to give back the land, Malarkodi told him that, he has already sold the property to her and he cannot ask for the property back. She scolded him saying, “xxx”. Her husband, Narayanasamy - (A.2) slapped him twice on his cheek and held his neck and pushed out saying “xxx”. Kumar, the son –in-law of Malarkodi took slippers and said, “xxx”. Malarkodi daughter Kalaiselvi scolded him “xxx” and hit him with broomstick. They all beat him. He went to his maternal uncle village Sakanatham and informed him about the occurrence and thereafter, reached the Police Station to give the complaint. One Arumugam of Sakanatham village was present along with the defacto complainant when the incident took place.

4. The complaint was given at 19.00 hrs on 26/12/2010. FIR was registered by Thiru.Tamilmaran, the Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station. Copy of the FIR was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore and the learned Judicial Magistrate Thittakudi. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thittakudi as the Investigation Officer under Rule 7 (i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. Accordingly Thiru.Navin Chandra Nagesh, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the case for investigation; visited the scene of occurrence; prepared an observation mahazar; recorded the statements of witnesses; arrested Malarkodi (A-1) and Narayanasamy (A-2). In his investigation, he found that Kumar and Kalaiselvi the other two persons mentioned in the complaint were not involved in the crime. Hence, he deleted their names and intimated it to the Court. After obtaining the community certificates from the Thasildar of the defacto complainant and the accused persons, filed the final report against A-1 and A-2 for offences under sections 294 (b), 323 IPC and section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

5. Before the trial Court, to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and marked 12 documents. On the side of the accused, a sale deed executed by the defacto complainant in favour of the first accused on 15/09/2005 was marked as EX D-1.6. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidences, held that the prosecution evidence indicates that the alleged incident has taken place at the house of t