JUDGMENT :

This appeal is filed as against the judgment of conviction and sentence of imprisonment by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai, in Special S.C.No.65 of 2015, dated 07.02.2017. The appellant is the sole accused.

2. The brief facts, which are relevant for the appeal, are as follows:

2.1. The accused and P.W-1 herein were auto rikshaw drivers. Both of them belong to neighbouring villages within the local limit of Chekkanurani Police Station. The dispute arose between the accused and the de-facto complainant regarding parking of their auto rikshaw in the Chellampatti auto rikshaw stand. As per the prosecution, on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 29.01.2015 at around 18.30 hours, when the de-facto complainant had stopped the auto rikshaw for the passengers to alight from his auto rikshaw near the Chellampatti Auto riskshaw stand, the accused and his relatives belonging to the caste, Piramalai Kallar, had objected to the parking of de-facto complainant's auto rikshaw in the auto rikshaw stand at Chellampatti and had abused the de-facto complainant, verbally in filthy language and assaulted him causing injury on his body, by uttering the words, “how dare you, you bastard, dare enough to give complaint against us”. He also threatened him with dire consequences, if the matter is reported to the police. Therefore, the conduct of the accused, as per the prosecution, attracts the provisions of Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC r/w Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act.

2.2. The occurrence had taken place in a public place viz., Chellampatti Auto Rikshaw stand within the local jurisdiction of Chekkanurani Police Station. Therefore, the members of the general public were also examined as witnesses. P.W-6-Special Sub Inspector of Police, Chekkanurani Police Station, had registered the complaint and sent express FIR to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti, and copy of the same was placed before the higher officials.

2.3. Based on the FIR, the Superintendent of Police, Madurai, had appointed P.W-8-Saravana Kumar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Usilampatti, as Investigation Officer. On receipt of the FIR under Ex.P-6, the Investigation Officer proceeded to the place of occurrence. He had recorded the statements of P.W-1-Ganesan/de-facto complainant, P.W-2- Kamatchi, wife of P.W-1, the members of general public, P.W-7-Muthumari, P.W-3-Ramar and P.W-4-Paulraj. He had also examined P.W-5-Gajendran/ Tahsildar, Usilampatti regarding the caste of the de-facto complainant. He had also examined P.W-6-Krishnan, Special Sub Inspector of Police, who had received the complaint under Ex.P-1 and had registered the FIR under Ex.P-6. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, had laid final report before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti. On summons to the accused, he had appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Usilampatti. The learned Judicial Magistrate had furnished the copies of the charge sheet and committed the case to the Court of the learned Special Judge (PCR cases), Madurai.

2.4. On receipt of the records by the learned Special Judge (PCR cases), Madurai, the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, had numbered the sessions case as Special S.C.No.65 of 2015 and on appearance of the accused, framed the charges under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused and he responded to the charges stating that he is not guilty and he claimed to be tried. Therefore, the trial was fixed and summons were issued to the witnesses.

2.5. The de-facto complainant, Ganesan, examined himself as P.W-1. Kamatchi, the wife of P.W-1, examined as P.W-2. The members of general public-Ramar was examined as P.W-3, Paulraj was examined as P.W-4, Gajendran, Tahsildar, Usilampatti, was examined as P.W-5. Krishnan, Special Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR, was examined as P.W-6, Muthumari, was examined