The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of thorough investigations in cases involving illegal panchayats and the insult of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe members.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment in Special S.C.No.138 of 2016, dated 17.10.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST Act, Villupuram, set aside the same.)

1. On 27.12.2015, when P.W.12 was on duty at Periyathatchur Police Station, P.W.1, one Munusamy, appeared before him and lodged a complaint to the effect that the complainant, his relatives and neighbours belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. While so, on 24.12.2015, the caste Hindus of the village conducted a Kangaroo panchayat, in which, the accused were made prostrate before the entire caste Hindu population and also were imposed with a fine. There is also previous enmity between both the caste groups. On 25.10.2015, when there was a dispute between one Balaraman and his wife, the accused persons intervened and not only insulted the said Balaraman and the de-facto complainant's son Krishna Murthy, they trespassed into the house and hit them. Thereafter, a case was registered against the de-facto complainant himself in Cr.No.182 of 2015. Therefore, requested to take appropriate action.

2. On the strength of the said allegations, a case in Cr.No.244 of 015 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the case was taken up for investigation by P.W.10 and thereafter conducted by P.W.11, who completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet proposing totally nine accused as guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)&(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.138 of 2016 and charges were framed against all the nine accused and upon being questioned, the accused denied the same and stood trial. Thereafter, the prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined on Munusamy as P.W.1. P.W.1 is the victim in this case who was insulted in public on the earlier occasion in the month of October, 2015 and who was insulted by the Kangaroo panchayat in the month of December, 2015 and who was made to prostrate before the caste Hindus. P.W.1 deposed to the said effect. The prosecution examined one Balaraman as P.W.2 who was also a victim having been insulted on the earlier occasion and also made to stand before the illegal panchayat in the second occasion and was made to pay the fine. He deposed to the said effect. The prosecution examined one Mallika as P.W.3 who was the wife of P.W.2 who also deposed in tune with P.W.2. The prosecution examined one Velachi as P.W.4 who was the wife of P.W.1 who also spoke on the same lines. The prosecution examined one P.N.Sridhar as P.W.5 who was the official who handed over the report as to the community of the victims as Scheduled Tribes in Ex.P-2. The prosecution examined one Krishnamurthy, the son of P.W.1, as P.W.6, who also spoke on the lines of P.W.1. The prosecution examined one Devanathan as P.W.7 who was the witness to the observation mahazar. P.W.8, Aadimoolam was the other witness to the observation mahazar. The prosecution examined one Uma Maheshwaran as P.W.9 who issued community certificate to the accused who are prosecuted in this case. One Swayambu is examined as P.W.10 who initially took up the case for investigation. Thereafter, one Suruliraja, who carried on the investigation and completed the investigation and filed Final Report, was examined as P.W.11. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered F.I.R, was examined as P.W.12.

3. On behalf of the prosecution, Exs.P-1 to P-9 were also marked. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and the incriminating circumstances on record, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the