An investigation report concluding 'Mistake of Fact' is sustainable where it is supported by technical evidence, such as call detail records and independent witness statements, and the challenger fails to prove procedural infirmities or actual bias in the investigation process.

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the orders of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST (POA) Act, Theni dated 03.02.2026 in Cr.M.P.No.3 of 2026.

2.The appellant has lodged a complaint as against respondents 2 to 8 that they assaulted and abused him by using his caste name and damaged his drainage pipe on 26.11.2024 at about 9.00 a.m. Based on the complaint of the appellant, Bodinayakkanur Rural PS have registered an FIR in Crime No.166 of 2025 on 25.08.2025. Since the case was registered under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the 1^st respondent Deputy Superintendent of Police has conducted investigation into the complaint of the appellant and filed a final report as Mistake of Fact. The appellant was served with RCS notice and he filed a protest petition challenging the final report before the Special Court for Trial of cases under SC/ST Act, Theni alleging that no witnesses were enquired by the investigating officer and hence the investigation was not conducted in a proper manner. The Special Court by its impugned order dated 03.02.2026 rejected the protest petition filed by the appellant and therefore the present appeal has been preferred.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the land in Survey No.293/7 to an extent of 1 Acre 18 cents situated at Melachokkanathapuram was partitioned among one Suruli Subbu and the 8^th respondent, who are brothers and their father one Subbusamy Gounder. Out of this land, 26 cents was allotted to the 8^th respondent, which was subsequently purchased by the appellant. He further submits that the said Suruli Subbu has executed a gift deed in favour of the Melachokkanathapuram town panchayat on 23.08.2001, whereby 10 cents belonging to the appellant was alienated and that respondents 2 to 8 have attempted to grab the property belonging to the appellant. Thereafter, when a road was laid near the appellant's house, the appellant attempted to fix a pipeline for drainage during which a dispute arose between the appellant and the respondents 2 to 8 and they assaulted the appellant and insulted him using his caste name.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submits that the investigation officer has obtained statements from 12 persons regarding the incident. Even though witnesses from the Scheduled Caste community had also witnessed the incident, no statements were recorded from such persons. Therefore, the investigation was conducted in a biased manner. Further, he submits that the trial court has erroneously accepted the contention of the 1^st respondent investigating officer that the respondents were not present at the place of occurrence. The appellant has stated in his complaint that the incident occurred at around 9 a.m and as per the call detail records, several of the accused were only a few metres or kilometres away from the place of occurrence. Hence, he prays that this appeal be allowed.

5.On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent police submits that the 1^st respondent has taken up investigation of the complaint and as per the call detail records of the accused, they were not present at the place of occurrence. He further submits that the investigating officer has recorded the statements of several witnesses near the place of occurrence and only on the basis of their statements, the final report has been filed as mistake of fact. Hence, he prays for dismissal of this appeal.

6.This court considered rival submissions and perused the materials.

7.The appellant belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community.

He served as a Deputy Manager in a nationalised bank at Chennai. He is a native of Dharmathupatti of Bodi Taluk and he purchased 26 cents of land in Survey No.293/7 from the 8^th respondent. The land in Survey No.293/7 to an