JUDGMENT :

T. Krishnavalli, J.

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment passed by the Special and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, in SC No. 112 of 2012, dated 23.09.2014.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 22.02.2012 when the de-facto complainant was going to attend the Mariamman temple function, due to previous motive the accused abused him by saying his caste name and subsequently, he bite his left ear and thereby caused grievous injury. The Deputy Superintendent of Police attached to Thirumayam Police Station, has filed a final report against the accused examining the witnesses.

3. The trial court, on proper appreciation of the evidence both oral and documentary, found the accused guilty, convicted the appellant for the offence under Sections 294(b), 326 IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of, SC/ST Act and awarded the rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and imposed a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and 2 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act and 5 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for 6 months for the offence under Section 326 IPC and directed to run the sentences concurrently and also directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation to the de-facto complainant. Aggrieved by the judgment of the trial court, the appellant/accused is before this court.

4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

5. The first contention raised on the side of the appellant/accused is that for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (P) Act, the prosecution has to prove that a member of non Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community has insulted a member of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe community in public view naturally in public place, but in this case, P.W.1 in his complaint categorically stated that on 22.02.2012 at 6.45 pm, when he stood on the back portion of his house, the accused came and reported about his brother Murugadoss and he requested that only his brother has transaction with him and so asked the accused to contact his brother and due to it, quarrel arose between P.W.1 and the accused and the accused used filthy language calling his caste name and as the occurrence was not taken place in the public place, the offence under Section 294(b) IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA) Act, 1986 are not made out and prays that the accused is entitled to acquittal. For that, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submitted a ruling reported in (2016) 4 MLJ (Crl) 509 (Muruganantham and another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Pollachi Taluk Police Station, Coimbatore District). In that case, it has been held as follows:-

"21. For an offence under section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(PA) Act, prosecution has to prove that a member of a non-scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe community has insulted a member of Scheduled caste/Scheduled tribe community in public view naturally in a public place.?

6. P.W.1 in his complaint stated that on 22.02.2012, when he was standing on the back portion of his house, the accused came and used filthy language and called his caste name. But during his evidence, he has stated that on 22.02.2012 at 6.45 pm, he stood near Firewood shop, which lies on the back portion of his house. P.W.1 during his cross examination stated as follows:-

P.W.1 during his cross examination admitted that he stated the place of occurrence is his back portion of his house.

7. P.W.2 is cited as eye witness. P.W.2 deposed that on 22.02.2012 at 6.45 pm, he heard the sound of P.W.1 quarrelled with the accused and the accused near the firewood workshop, which lies on the back portion of the house of P.W.1.

8. On perusal of the observation mazahar in respect of the place of occurrence, it is stated as follows:-

9. In the rough sketch, the place of