The court held that inconsistent evidence and lack of independent witnesses failed to prove the appellant's insults and threats were made in public view, leading to acquittal under the SC/ST Act.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.

The appellant, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.4 of 2013, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act Court, Sivagangai, has filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, in S.C.No.4 of 2013, dated 16.11.2018, by the learned Sessions Judge, SC/ST Act Court, Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant.

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

2.1. Due to some civil dispute between the appellant and the defacto complainant, on 18.04.2012, at 04.00 p.m., while the defacto complainant was cutting wood in her own land, the appellant is said to have abused her by using her caste name and also threatened her with dire consequences. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.5. The same was registered in Crime No.57 of 2012, for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 506(ii) 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.10 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.8 of 2004 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-2, Sivagangai.

2.2. 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-2, Sivagangai, 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 District and Sessions Court, Sivagangai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.4 of 2013. 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.10 and exhibited 7 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.7. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after reading the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for examination of defence evidence. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on his side.

2.4. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellant, the learned trial Judge passed the impugned judgment, dated 16.11.2018 and found the appellant guilty, and convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:-

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

4.1. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that P.W.1 made a false complaint against him as there was civil dispute between them relating to enjoyment of the property. P.W.1 also got a decree against the appellant. Further, the appeal is pending against the decree and hence, this case was filed with the false allegations as if the appellant had scolded her by using her caste name. The said allegation of scolding with the caste name is the handiwork of the brother-in-law of P.W.1, who is a practicing Advocate. After the occurrence, she confabulated the said advocate and hence, the version of P.W.1 is unbelievable one.

4.2. He further submitted that P.W.2 also is the relative of P.W.1 and his evidence is not corroborated by the deposition of P.W.1. P.W.3 came to the occurrence place only after the occurrence. Therefore, without any corroborating evidence and also without satisfying the ingredients