For an offence under the SC/ST Act, the insult must occur in public view with independent witnesses present; absence of such evidence leads to acquittal under this Act.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.

The appellant/Accused No.1 in S.C.No.160 of 2011, on the file of the PCR Court, Sivagangai, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, in S.C.No.160 of 2011, dated 04.04.2019, by the PCR Court, Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant.

2. The Brief facts of the prosecution case reads as follows:

2.1. Due to money dispute between the brother of the complainant and the accused, on 22.06.2011, at about 04.00 p.m, when the defacto complainant was proceeding towards his daughter's house, located at Sowmianarayanapuram, Kurunji Nagar, the appellant and other two accused are said to have accosted him and abused him in filthy language by calling his caste name and also attacked him with their hands and a broom and caused injuries. Further, they threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Government hospital, Thirupathur. For further treatment, he was shifted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.6. The same was registered in Crime No.40 of 2011, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 355 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “SC/ST Act”). Thereafter, P.W.12 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.15 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur.

2.2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, found that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, is triable only by the Sessions Court and committed the case under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C., to the learned PCR Court, Sivagangai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.160 of 2011. Then, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

2.3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and marked 1 material object as M.O.1. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after explaining the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on their side.

2.4. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellant and the other accused, the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 04.04.2019 and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:-

3. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

4. This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the records and the impugned judgment and the precedents relied upon by the appellant.

5. According to the appellant, due to the motive, a false complaint was foisted against him and the deposition of P.W.1 that the appellant along with other accused scolded him by using his caste name is a false one. He further submitted that the same was not in public view. To consider the said submission i.e., wh