Judgment :- 1. This Criminal Appeal is filed as against the judgment rendered in S.C.No:28 of 2001, dated 31.5.2002 by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Protection of Civil Rights), Thanjavur and to set aside the conviction of the appellants 1 to 4 under Sections 341, 355 and 323 IPC and sentence imposed upon them to undergo 3 months S.I., one year SI., and 6 months SI., respectively, and conviction of appellants 5 to 7 under Section 342 IPC and sentence imposed upon them to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and further conviction of appellants 1 to 7 under Section 3(1)(x) SC/ST Act and sentence imposed upon them to undergo SI., for 30 months and to pay fine of Rs.500/= each, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows:- The defacto complainant (P.W.1) and P.Ws 2 to 4 are members of Scheduled Caste (Hindu-Parayar). Al the accused herein are caste Hindus. On 18.3.2000 at about 6.00 pm., at Edaiyiruppu Village, P.Ws 1 to 4 were pasting the poser of their community conference schedule to be held on 16.4.2000. When P.Ws 1 to 4 were pasting the said poser on the wall of the shop belonging to the Government, all the accused came there and objected to the pasting of the said poster and questioned PWs 1 to 4 as to why they were pasting the said poster there. For which, PWS 1 to 4 replied that it was their community conference poster an that they are pasting it on a public wall. Immediately, all the accused particularly the first accused intentionally insulted PWs 1 to 4 by calling their caste name as and he brought a firewood from the nearby shop and beat PW.1 on his left leg and left eye brow. The third accused beat PW.3 with a firewood on his left hand and left shoulder. When PW.2 objected the acts of the accused, he was beaten with chappal by A.2. A.4 shouted directing the other accused to tie P.Ws 1 to 4. Thereafter all the accused beat P.Ws 1 to 4 and they were made to sit on the road in a row. Thereafter A.5 to A.7 were sent for from Thirukarukavur. When PW.2 objected the acts of the accused, he was beaten with chappal by A.2. A.4 shouted directing the other accused to tie P.Ws 1 to 4. Thereafter all the accused beat P.Ws 1 to 4 and they were made to sit on the road in a row. Thereafter A.5 to A.7 were sent for from Thirukarukavur. A.5 to A.7 on their arrival at Ediayiruppu Village beat P.WS 1 to 4 and all the accused took homeopathi Hospital room and bolted the door from outside. P.Ws 5 to 8 witnessed the entire incident and P.Ws 5 rushed to the street at Thirukarukavur and informed them about the atrocities of the accused. Thereafter, P.Ws 5 to 8 pleaded with the accused to let out P.Ws 1 to 4 and t hat further discussion can be held on the next day morning. But all the accused dragged out PWs 1 to 4 from out of the said homeopathi clinic room of Thirukukarukavur and beat them as to why they have pasted the poster at Edaiyiruppu village. Thereafter after great persuasion all the accused released PWS 1 to 4 who were taken to their street by P.Ws 5 to 8 and on the next day morning P.Ws 1 to 4 went to the Papanasam Police Station. On 19.3.200 at 3.30 hours P.W.14, the Special Sub Inspector of Police of Papanasam Police Station received the complaint Ex.P.1 lodged by P.W 1 and registered an FIR Ex.P.16, in crime No.126/2000 and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam. He despatched the copies of Ex.P.16 to his higher officials. He sent P.Ws 1 to 4 with medical Memo to the Government Hospital, Papanasam for treatment. PW.11 Dr.Karunanithi, Senior Civil Surgeon, of the said Hospital examined P.Ws.1 to 3 as outpatients. P.W.11 noted the injures found on PWs. 1 to 3 in the Accident Register copies (Exs.P.2 to P.4) respectively. The caste certificates Exs.P.5 to P.11, were issued to the accused perspectively by Chandrasekaran, the then Deputy Tashildar, Papanasam. P.W.13 Pannerselvam then Tahsildar, Papanasam issued caste certificate to P.Ws.1 to 4 respectively certifying that they belong to members of Schedule Caste (Hindu-Parayar) During investigation P.w.15, the former Deputy Superintendent of Police, Papanasam prepared an observation mahazar Ex.P.17 and a sketch map Ex.P.18 on 19.3.200 at 17.30 hours at the scene of occurrence in the presence of witnesses like P.Ws.9 to 10. A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.7 were arrested on the same day and sent for remand. After completing the investigation, P.W.15 filed a charge sheet on 11.7.2000. 3. Before the trial court on behalf of the prosecution P.Ws 1 to 15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.18 were marked. On behalf of the accused, no witness was examined and no document was marked. 4. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, they denied their complicity of the offences alleged against them. 5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Special Judge, Thanjavur found the accused guilty of the offences, convicted and sentenced them as stated earlier. Aggrieved of the said conviction and sentence, this revision has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants did not argue on the merits of the case. However, the only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the investigation was not done by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, specially appointed for that purpose, as required under Rule 7 of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. To support his contention, the learned counsel pressed into service two judgments of this court reported in 2006 (2) MLJ (Crl) 463 (H.Thenmozhi Vs. The Inspector of Police PRF Unit, St.Thomas Mount) and 2007 (I) MLJ (Crl) 654 (Sambasivam and another Vs. State rep. by Dy.Supdt of Police, Mannarkudi). But in those two decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants, the cases were initially investigated by the Inspector of Polices and only final reports were filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. But the facts of this case are not so. In this case, the investigation from the very beginning has been conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who laid the charge sheet. 7. Even assuming that the investigation has not been done by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, not specially appointed for this purpose, unless prejudice has been caused to the accused by such investigation, such a defence is not available to them. In Vennapusa Gangireddy @ Sadhu and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2007 (3) Crimes 5238 (AP), it has been held as follows:- "32. In Vennapusa Gangireddy @ Sadhu and others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2007 (3) Crimes 5238 (AP), it has been held as follows:- "32. Rule 7 of the Rules made under the Act lays down that a police officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police shall investigate into the offence committed under the Act. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Proddatur is examined as P.W.5. He clams to have investigated into the offence. But, the learned counsel for the appellant/accused has drawn my attention tot he evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 who stated that they were examined by the Sub Inspector of Police, and contends that the investigation was carried out by an Officer not competent to investigate. He relied upon the ruling of this court in Mallela Pada Venkateswara Reddy Vs. Sub Divisional Police Officer, Kandukru (2005 (1) ALT (Crl) 245(AP) where investigation was carried out by Sub Inspector of Police and it was verified by the Sub Divisional Police Officer, it was held that verification is not equal to investigation and the investigation was vitiated by not being done by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, as mandated by Rule 7. In the case on hand, as per record, it is the Deputy Superintendent of Police who investigated into the case. Even assuming that the investigation was done by the Sub Inspector as contended to by the counsel for the appellants/accused, a Full Bench of this court in Yannam Satyanarayana Vs. State of A.P., (2000 (2) ALT (Crl) 223 (FB) took the view that mere investigation conducted by an officer other than the one who is contemplated under the Act, cannot be said to be totally vitiated unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused and it is open to the accused or the party aggrieved, at the initial stages to raise such objection on the investigation conducted by an officer other than the one contemplated under Rule 7 and invite a decision before commencement of trial itself and the same cannot be taken advantage after completion of the entire trial, more so in the absence of, showing any substantial prejudice. No objection was taken at the time of the trial in this case nor is it shown that any prejudice is caused by the investigation done by the Sub Inspector of Police. No objection was taken at the time of the trial in this case nor is it shown that any prejudice is caused by the investigation done by the Sub Inspector of Police. The objection taken by the accused at the time of appeal now cannot be entertained. Even otherwise, as per the record, it was only the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who did the investigation. Therefore, I do not see any force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel on this point also." 8. In this case also, the investigation has been done by P.W.15, Deputy Superintendent Of Police, Papanasam. Further, even assuming that P.W.15 is not specially appointed to investigate such cases, it cannot be said that the entire investigation is totally vitiated unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the accused. Further, such an objection has to be taken before commencement of trial and not at this appellate stage as has been held in the above said decision. 9. The intention of the Legislature in framing of Rule 7 is that experienced Police Officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police should investigate such offences. Since atrocities against members of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe communities are prevalent throughout the country, the special Legislation was enacted to curb the menace which is a social evil. Therefore, the Legislature wanted experienced Police Officers not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate such cases arising out of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Further, to foist a case under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is easy because it does not require any property or injury. There are instances where Deputy Superintendent of Police are recruited directly and they may not have sufficient experience in investigating such matters and if such Deputy Superintendent of Police officers who are recruited directly to such cadre or posts are entrusted with such investigation, they may not have sufficient experience which may result in prejudice to the accused. But, this is not a case in which the Deputy Superintendent of Police was directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police. No such suggestion was also made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he did not have sufficient experience as investigating officer of such offences. Therefore, the investigation done by P.W.15 in this case is not vitiated on any ground. 10. No such suggestion was also made to the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he did not have sufficient experience as investigating officer of such offences. Therefore, the investigation done by P.W.15 in this case is not vitiated on any ground. 10. In the above circumstances, the Criminal Appeal fails and the same is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence rendered by the trial court in S.C.No:28 of 2001. The bail bond executed by the accused shall stand cancelled and the trial court is directed to secure the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.