The prosecution must provide credible and corroborative evidence to substantiate charges under the SC/ST Act and IPC; mere allegations or unsupported witness testimonies are insufficient for conviction.

COMMON JUDGMENT

These two Criminal Appeals are directed against the judgment passed in S.C.No.70 of 2020 dated 15.12.2021 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, Thoothukudi, in which, criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.573 of 2022 is filed by the defacto complainant, challenging the acquittal of accused for certain offences, whereas, criminal appeal in Crl.A.(MD)No.79 of 2023 is filed by the accused, challenging the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 323 IPC .

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant / P.W.1 residing at Manthithoppu Durasinga Nagar, belongs to Hindu Pallar community, that the first accused residing at Nalatinpudhur and the accused 3 and 4, who are brothers, residing at Manthithoppu Village, belong to Hindu Yadhavar community and the second accused residing at Kovilpatti, Pasuvanthanai main road, belongs to Hindu Vadukan community and that since the accused 1 to 4 had taken saral sand from kanmai without permission of the Government, there was enmity between the defacto complainant / P.W.1 and the accused. On 24.02.2019 at about 10.45 p.m., when the defacto complainant / P.W.1 was standing with his vehicle in Manthithoppu – Kurumalai Vilakku road, the accused came to that place, beaten him with hands and kicked him with their legs and abused him in filthy language using his caste name and also threatened him that he would vacate and leave his village and they had also removed the dhoti worn by him and that thereby they had committed the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 506(1) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015.

3. The learned II Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Tirunelveli, had taken the case on file and furnished the copies of records under Section 207 Cr.P.C. on free of costs. In view of the constitution of a Special Court for trial of cases under SC/ST (PoA) Act, the case was transferred and was taken on file in S.C.No.70 of 2020.

4. After appearance of the accused, the Special Court, on hearing both the sides and on perusal of records, being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed charges under Sections 294 (b), 323 and 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(l)(r), 3(l)(s), 3(l)(e) and 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (PoA) Act, 2015 and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, they denied the charges and pleaded not guilty.

5. The prosecution, to prove its case, examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11.

6. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced on their side, in brief as follows:

(a) P.W.1-Kanagaraj / defacto complainant is residing at Manthithoppu Duraisinga Nagar of Kovilpatti and is doing agricultural work. P.W.3 and P.W.4 are residing at Manthithoppu Ganesh Nagar of Kovilpatti. On 24.02.2019 at about 10.45 p.m., when P.W.1 was proceeding towards his house from Kurumalai Vilakku, the accused came to that place and abused him in filthy language using caste name stating that he lodged a complaint before the Tahsildar and police, as if, they were taking sand and that they had kicked him with their legs and threatened to behave prop