JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been filed as against the judgment and conviction passed by the Principal Sessions Court, Dindigul District in Special Sessions Case No.28 of 2017 dated 20.02.2019, wherein the trial Court has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/- was ordered to be paid to P.W.2 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C., and the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)

(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance 2014.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused who is the resident of Mariyayeepalayam, Kottur Village, Nilakottai Taluk belongs to Christian Vanniar community, that is non-schedule caste and the defacto complainant Rakku and her husband Palanisamy are residents of South street Colony, Avvaiampatti, Kottur Village, Nilakottai Taluk are belonging to Hindu Pallar Community, which is schedule caste. The defacto complainant’s sister Subbulakshmi, who was under the care and custody of the complainant, had eloped with one Kannan and got married and accused was responsible for their elopement and thereby, there was enmity between the parties. While so, on 09.02.2014 at about 07.00 pm., when the complainant was in front of her house, the accused came there and abused the complainant in filthy language and abused her caste name by saying that “Vz;o> gs;sr;rp njtpoah kfns”and also by asking as to who had preferred the complaint against him and he attempted to attack with aruval and the same was prevented by P.W.2. At that time, he got injury on his index finger of right hand and further, the accused by showing aruval threatened with dire consequences. Thereby, the accused committed offence under Sections 294(b), 326, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Ordinance, 2014.

3.After occurrence, the victim was admitted in the hospital and thereafter, he gave complaint/Ex.P.1 before the first respondent and based on the complaint, P.W.8 registered FIR/Ex.P.6 and thereafter, the case was investigated by P.W.9 and P.W.10. During investigation, they examined witnesses and collected documents and thereby, filed final report as against the accused under Sections 294(b), 326, 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Ordinance, 2014. After filing final report, copies of the records relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused and thereafter, the trial Court framed charges as against the accused under Section 294(b), 326 and 506(ii) IPC and Section 3(1) (r)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Ordinance 2014. The charges were read over and explained to the accused and he denied the same. Thereafter, the prosecution, in order to prove the case, examined P.W.1 to P.W. 10 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9 and also marked material object as MO.1. On the side of the accused, no one was examined and no documents were marked. After completion of prosecution witness, the trial Court has examined the accused with regard to the incriminating circumstances under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C., he denied those allegations. After hearing both sides and perusing materials, the trial Court convicted the accused for the offence under Section 326 IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine amount, Rs.20,000/- was ordered to be paid to P.W.2 as compensation under Section 357(1) Cr.P.C., and the trial Court acquitted the accused for the offence under Sections 294(b), 506(ii) IPC r/w Sections 3(1)(r)

(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Ordinance 2014.

4.Aggrieved by the above said judgment and conviction, the present appeal has been preferred on the following grounds:- i)the judgment and conviction passed by the trial Court is against t