A conviction under the SC/ST (POA) Act remains sustainable when prosecution witnesses consistently prove the actus reus, and the occurrence of the incident in a public place is established by corroborating medical and documentary evidence.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in Spl.Sc.No.267 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases Registered under the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.01.2015 at about 12.00 noon, the accused while harvesting paddy caused damages to the underground pipe line of the defacto complainant which is situated near the land of all the four accused persons. Therefore, the defacto complainant and his family members questioned the damages caused to the pipeline which was laid by them. Due to which the accused abused the defacto complainant with filthy language by using their caste name. Further the second accused had also beaten the P.W.1 by using wooden log and caused simple injuries. The 3^rd accused assaulted P.W.3 by using sickle and caused injury on his head. The 4^th accused also abused all the persons and also threatened them with dire consequences by using their caste name. The 4^th accused assaulted P.W.3 with a wooden log on his head and caused injuries. A2 and A3 also threatened the defacto complainant and his family members by using weapons and threatened them with dire consequences.

3. Based on the complaint the first respondent registered the F.I.R. in Cr.No.12/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 294(b), 323,324, 506(ii) r/w 3(1) II (R) (S) SC/ST Act. After completion of the investigation the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4. In order to prove the charges, the Trial Court had examined 13 witnesses P.Ws.1 to P.W.13 and marked 11 documents Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no documents were marked.

5. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court found the accused 1 to 4 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment each. Further the accused 2 to 4 were also found guilty for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C and were sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment each. Further the A2 and A3 were also found guilty for the offence under section 506(i) of I.P.C and were sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment each. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that P.W.1 had laid the pipe line in the appellant’s land. Due to which there was a quarrel and a false complaint has been lodged as against the accused. He further submits that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. After the occurrence, there was a delay of 8 hours in lodging the complaint. Further there was a delay in reaching the F.I.R to the Court. Even according to the prosecution no ingredient is made out to attract the charge under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST(POA) Act. There are contradictions between the deposition made by P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the place and time of occurrence. Further the alleged occurrence did not take place in the public place to attract the offence under Sections 3(1) (x) of SC/ST(POA) Act. All the evidences have alluded their versions before the Court only to wreak vengeance as against the accused. In fact A1 to A3 also sustained injuries during the quarrel and all of the