JUDGMENT :

(The case has been heard through Video Conference)

The convicted first accused is the appellant herein.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment passed in Spl.S.C.No.127 of 2015, by the learned District and Sessions Judge, special cases for SC/ST Act cases, Villupuram, dated 19.11.2015.

3(a).The case of the prosecution is that in the complaint given by one Subburayan (PW1), it is stated that the complainant and the accused are having adjacent lands. On 15.01.2012 at about 5.00 p.m., while the complainant was working in his land, at the time, the appellant herein and his brother trespassed into his land and threatened him to cut the palm trees situated in his land and when the same was questioned by the complainant, the appellant and his brother used filthy language and also abused complainant's community name and threatened him with dire consequences. Hence, the complainant has preferred a complaint before the Anadapuram police station.

3(b). Based upon the complaint given by the complainant, the Inspector of Police, Ananthapuram, Gingee Taluk, has registered a case in Crime No.15 of 2012 for offence under Section 294(b), 447, 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act as against the appellant and another and the same were shown as under :

Offence committed by the accused persons Charges framed under Section Rank of the accused persons

For abusing in public place 294(b) IPC A1 & A2

For trespassing 447 of IPC A1 & A2

For threatening with dire consequences 506(ii) of IPC A1 & A2

Abusing by utterance of caste word(SC/ST) 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act A1 & A2

Thereafter the case was forwarded to the respondent for investigation. After investigation, the respondent herein had filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gingee and the learned Magistrate has transferred the case to the learned District and Sessions Judge, special cases for SC/ST Act cases, Villupuram. The Lower Court had framed charges against A1 & A2 for alleged offence under Sections 294(b), 447, 506(ii) of IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act.

4. During the course of trial in Spl.S.C.No.127 of 2015, on behalf of the complainant seven witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW7 and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked; on behalf of the accused no witness has been examined and no document has been marked; no material object has been marked.

5. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge has acquitted A1 from the charges framed under Sections 294(b), 447, 506(ii) of IPC and convicted A1 for the charge framed under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and imposed six month imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one month imprisonment. Further, the learned judge has acquitted A2 from all the charges framed against him by the Trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the first accused has filed the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

6. Heard both the learned counsels and perused the materials placed on record.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act has not been proved in the manner known to law and final report in this case has been filed after 30 days as prescribed under Rule 7 Sub-Clause 2 of SC/ST(POA) Rules.

8. The learned Government Advocate made submissions in support of the judgment of the Trial Court. As stated supra, after the trial, the learned Special Sessions Judge for SC/ST Act cases has acquitted A2 from all the charges and the Trial Court has held that the charges framed under Sections 294(b), 447 & 506(ii) of IPC against the present appellant herein were acquitted, however, for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is made out and accordingly laid conviction and sentence against the appellant herein as stated supra.

9(a).The twin ingredients to attract the provisions of the above said charge for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is that:

(a) the victim should be