For convictions under SC/ST Act, incidents must occur in public view; however, discrepancies in witness accounts do not negate credible evidence of assault leading to murder.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR) Madurai dated 03.02.2023, the present criminal appeals have been filed by the appellants.

2. The trial Court has convicted the accused as follows:

3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and the injured belongs to the Scheduled caste/Scheduled Tribe community and they were living in the house owned by the P.W.6. In the same road opposite to their house the accused were living in the first floor. They belong to other community. While being so, the first accused, while he was going to his house, very often used to knock the house door of the deceased and as such there was previous enmity between them. The accused also used to scold them in filthy language by using their caste name. On the date of occurrence, while he was on the way to his house, knocked the house door of the deceased. While, P.W.1 opened the door, the first accused assaulted him by using his hook which he uses for lifting bundle of bags. Immediately after hearing the noise, the deceased came out of the kitchen and prevented the first accused, for which she was also assaulted with the same hook indiscriminately.

4. At this juncture the second accused came to their house and assaulted both the deceased and P.W.1 with wooden log. They also scolded them with filthy language by using their caste name. Due to the assault both the deceased and P.W.1 sustained grievous injuries and they got fainted. Thereafter P.W.1 went to the house of P.W.3 who is none other than his and the deceased's son who is residing at a close distance and informed the occurrence. Thereafter PW.3 and other relatives came to the place of occurrence and took P.W.1 and the deceased to the hospital. Next day morning i.e. 26.11.2017 the police came to the hospital, recorded the statements from P.W.1 and registered the First Information Report in Crime No.2039 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 323,307 of IPC and Sections3(2)(va), 3(1)(r ) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act. After the death of the deceased the case was altered to offences under Sections 323,307,302 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va),3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC/ST(PoA)Act.

5. After completion of investigation the respondent police filed final report before the III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR)Madurai and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.24 of 2018.

6. In order to substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.19, and 26 exhibits were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.26 and six material objects as M.O.1 to M.O.6.

7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the appellants were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, they denied the charges as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused, nor was any document marked.

8. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and hearing both sides, by judgment dated 03.02.2023, convicted the appellants and sentenced them as detailed in Paragraph No.2 supra. Challenging the above-said conviction and sentence, both the accused have filed separate appeals.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the alleged occurrence took place on 25.11.2017 at about 8.30 pm. The prosecution relied upon the sole eye witness for the entire case to prove the charges. According him the occurrence took place at about 8.30pm.,on 25.11.2017 and bo