Insufficient evidence of public view undermines SC/ST Act charges; mere abusive language not enough for IPC Section 294(b) without proof of annoyance; conviction for injury under IPC Section 323 confirmed.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.

The appellant/sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009, on the file of the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Sivagangai, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009, dated 03.12.2018, by the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant.

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

On 17.02.2005, at about 06.00 p.m., due to previous enmity, when the defacto complainant was sprinkling water on the floor in front of her house situated at Chinnavalayankulam, the accused is said to have abused the defacto complainant by calling her caste name. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the appellant assaulted her with a wooden log on her head and caused simple injury. On hearing the alarm made by P.W.1, P.W.2, who is the daughter of P.W.1 came there and tried to prevent the assault. In that process, she also sustained simple injury. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.8. The same was registered in Crime No.89 of 2005, for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC r/w 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.11 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.14 of 2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai.

3.On appearance of the appellant, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under Section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, 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 III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in Special S.C.No.15 of 2006. Then, he framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. Thereafter, the case was transferred from learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after disclosing 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.

5. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellant, the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 03.12.2018, and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:-

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

7.This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the records and the impugned judgment and the precedents