The court elucidated that the requirements of public view and corroborative evidence are critical to establish an offense under the SC/ST Act, highlighting the necessity of independent witnesses and credible evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.

The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.116 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Sivagangai, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, in S.C.No. 116 of 2009, dated 15.11.2018, by the learned Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant.

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

Due to the money suit was decreed in favour of the defacto complainant, on 16.09.2006, at 07.00 a.m., when the defacto complainant was going near a well of the appellant situated at Koothakudi Kanmai, the appellant is said to have waylaid the accused and abused him in filthy language by using his caste name and threatened him with dire consequences. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before the respondent police. P.W.7 registered a case in Crime No.276 of 2006, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, (POA) Act, 1989, (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “SC/ST Act”). Thereafter, P.W.8 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.1 of 2007 by the learned Judicial Magistrate-2, Sivagangai.

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-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, Madurai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.148 of 2007. Thereafter, the said case in S.C.No.148 of 2007 transferred from the District and Sessions Court, Madurai, to the learned Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Sivagangai. The said learned Sessions Judge (PCR cases), Sivagangai, has taken on file in S.C.No.116 of 2009. Then, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial.

4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and exhibited 9 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and produced 1 material object as M.O.1. 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 and other accused, the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 15.11.2018 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 Appeals.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, are not made out.

7.1. To support his contention, he also relied the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

i) Swaran S