Conviction under IPC for assault confirmed; however, SC/ST Act charges dismissed due to failure to prove insult in public view as required by law.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.Ramakrishnan, J.

The appellant, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.352 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.352 of 2009, dated 05.12.2018, by the learned Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant.

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

On 20.07.2006, at 10.00 a.m, when the defacto complainant was irrigating his agricultural land through a channel, the appellant prevented the flowing of water. When the same was questioned by the complainant, the appellant is said to have abused him in filthy language by using his caste name and attacked him with shovel and caused grievous injuries on his leg. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.8. The same was registered in Crime No.314 of 2006, for the offences under Sections 323 , 324 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(V) 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. During the course of investigation, P.W.11 got superannuated on 31.07.2006. Thereafter, P.W.12 conducted further investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.55 of 2006 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), 3(1)(v) 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.72 of 2007. Thereafter, the said case in S.C.No.72 of 2007 transferred from learned District and Sessions Court, Madurai, to learned Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Sivagangai. The learned Sessions Judge (PCR cases), Sivagangai, has taken it on file in S.C.No.352 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.12 and exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 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 his 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 05.12.2018 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 perused the records and the documents adduced by the prosecution and the grounds raised by the appella