Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is P.W.1/defacto complainant in S.C.No.91 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli and on the basis of his complaint, the first respondent herein filed the charge sheet in P.R.C.No.89 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi, which, on committal, became Sessions Case No.91 of 2006. The Trial Court has framed charges under Sections 341, 294(b) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and after full-fledged trial, the second respondent/sole accused was acquitted, vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2008 and challenging the order of acquittal, the present revision is filed. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the revision read as follows: 2.1. P.W.1 belongs to Scheduled Caste Pallar Community and the second respondent/accused belongs to Hindu Yadhava Community of the Backward Class. P.W.1/defacto complainant was the cultivating tenant of Punja lands belonging to one Piraisoodiammal for the past fifteen years. On account of the fact that there was no good harvest, he was unable to pay the lease amount to the land owner. The second respondent/accused has demanded the arrears of lease amount quite often and on account of the same, there used to be wordy quarrel between them. On 02.04.2005 at about 08.00 a.m., P.W.1 was riding a bicycle to effect some purchase and at that time, the second respondent/accused has wrongfully restrained him and abused him by using unparliamentary words and also denigrating his caste. According to P.W.1, it was also witnessed by the people of the locality and on seeing them, the second respondent/accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. 2.2. P.W.1/defacto complainant, after waiting nearly for about one year, has lodged the complaint under Ex.P.1 on 17.04.2006 to Sernthamaram Police Station and P.W.6-Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.75 of 2006, for the commission of the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Ex.P.5 is the First Information Report. P.W.6, on registration of the case, dispatched the original of Ex.P.1 and the First Information Report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and copies to his higher officials. 2.3. Ex.P.5 is the First Information Report. P.W.6, on registration of the case, dispatched the original of Ex.P.1 and the First Information Report to the Jurisdictional Magistrate and copies to his higher officials. 2.3. P.W.8 was the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Puliyankudi and on receipt of the copy of the First Information Report and other materials, commenced investigation and visited the place of occurrence on 17.04.2006 and prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P.2) and rough sketch (Ex.P.6) and also examined the witnesses and recorded their statements and he has examined further witnesses on 18.04.2006 and recorded their statements. On 04.06.2006, he examined P.W.5 and collected the Community Certificate of the second respondent/accused and also examined P.W.7 and collected the Community Certificate of the revision petitioner/defacto complainant and after completing the investigation, has filed the final report to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tenkasi in P.R.C.No.89 of 2006. 2.4. The Committal Court, on filing of the final report, issued summons to the second respondent/accused and furnished with him, the copies of documents, under Section 207 of Code of Criminal Procedure and having found that the case is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, committed the case to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. 2.5. The said Court, on appearance of the second respondent/accused, has framed the charges against him under Sections 341, 294(b) of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and questioned him and he pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and prayed for trial of the case. 2.6. The prosecution, in order to sustain their case, has examined P.W.1 to P.W.8 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.6 2.7. The second respondent/accused was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, with regard to the incriminating circumstances made out against him in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and he denied it as false. 2.8. The second respondent/accused examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D.1 to D.5. 2.9. The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences, found that Ex.P.1 complaint came to be lodged nearly one year after the date of occurrence and absolutely, no reasons have been stated as to such a huge delay in lodging the complaint. 2.8. The second respondent/accused examined himself as D.W.1 and marked Exs.D.1 to D.5. 2.9. The Trial Court, on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences, found that Ex.P.1 complaint came to be lodged nearly one year after the date of occurrence and absolutely, no reasons have been stated as to such a huge delay in lodging the complaint. The Trial Court further held that the presence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were said to be the eye witnesses, have not been mentioned in Ex.P.1-complaint and the defence exhibits marked on behalf of the second respondent/accused would disclose the fact that P.W.2 is already inimical, as the wife of the second respondent/accused submitted a representation against him before the concerned Educational Agency. The Trial Court also found very many infirmities in the evidence tendered by the prosecution and on a consideration of oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court has acquitted the second respondent/accused, by awarding him, the benefit of doubt, vide impugned judgment dated 24.03.2008 and challenging the said order of acquittal, P.W.1/defacto complainant has filed this revision. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would vehemently contend that the Trial Court has projected minor infirmities as a major one and erroneously reached the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond any reasonable doubt and thereby, awarded benefit of doubt and acquitted him and would further submit that the delay in lodging Ex.P.1 complaint was on account of the fact that the second respondent/accused belongs to an upper caste and he being the person belonging to the Scheduled Caste Community, he was facing threat and since the delay has been properly explained, the Trial Court ought not to have taken into consideration the said delay. 4. 4. Insofar as the testimonies of P.Ws.2 and 3 are concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners that their testimonies corroborate with each other and also with P.W.1 on material particulars and inconsistencies, if any, may be on account of the fact that they have been examined long after the date of the occurrence and would further add that the representation submitted by the wife of the second respondent/accused is nothing to do with the evidence given by P.W.2 and citing the said grounds, prays for setting aside the impugned order of acquittal and remanding the matter to the Trial Court for de novo trial. 5. The Court heard the submissions of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also, who would submit that the State did not prefer any appeal against acquittal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/accused would contend that the Trial Court has elaborately considered the oral and documentary evidences let in by the prosecution in proper perspective and came to the conclusion to acquit the second respondent/accused and only in the event of perversity in the findings rendered on no evidence, this Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction to set aside the order of acquittal and remand the matter and since the findings came to be rendered, on an elaborate consideration of oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective, this Court need not resort to such an exercise and prays for dismissal of this revision. 7. This Court paid its best attention to the rival submissions and also perused the impugned judgment of the Trial Court as well as the original records. 8. Admittedly, the alleged offences were said to have been committed on 02.04.2005 and however, P.W.1/revision petitioner/defacto complainant had lodged a complaint nearly after one year on 17.04.2006. This Court has also perused Ex.P.1 and there is no whisper in the said complaint that since he was threatened and fearing for his life, he did not choose to lodge a complaint immediately after the occurrence. Moreover, in Ex.P.1-complaint, it is stated that when the second respondent/accused has abused him by using unparliamentary word and also denigrating his caste, the residents of the locality were present and admittedly, he did not give the names of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were also known to him, as persons who witnessed the said occurrence. 9. Moreover, in Ex.P.1-complaint, it is stated that when the second respondent/accused has abused him by using unparliamentary word and also denigrating his caste, the residents of the locality were present and admittedly, he did not give the names of P.W.2 and P.W.3, who were also known to him, as persons who witnessed the said occurrence. 9. P.W.8, the Investigating Officer would also depose that either in the complaint or during the course of investigation, P.W.1 did not state anything about the threat and give reasons for belatedly lodging of the complaint. As already pointed out, P.W.2 and P.W.3 are very well known to the revision petitioner/P.W.1/defacto complainant and if they would have really witnessed the occurrence, nothing prevented him from giving their names as persons who have witnessed the alleged commission of the offences. But, in Ex.P.1 complaint, their names did not find place. P.W.2 is also having inimical towards the wife of the second respondent/accused, as evidenced by the defence documents marked as Exs.D.1 to D.5 and the said documents would disclose that with regard to the conducting of the school, the wife of the second respondent/accused has lodged a complaint, based on which, action has been taken against him. Though P.W.1 alleges that there was previous enmity between the second respondent/accused and himself on account of the non-payment of the lease amount, nothing has been elicited in the testimonies of the witnesses and it is also pertinent to point out at this juncture that the prosecution has failed to establish any nexus between the landlord of P.W.1, namely Piraisoodiammal and the second respondent/accused. This Court has also scrutinized the oral and documentary evidences and found that nowhere, it has been revealed as to the relationship between the second respondent/accused and the landlord of P.W.1, namely Piraisoodiammal. 10. In the considered opinion of the Court, the Trial Court, on a threadbare analysis of oral and documentary evidences, found that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the second respondent/accused beyond any reasonable doubt and rightly awarded benefit of doubt and acquittal. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire materials placed before it, is of the considered view that there is no error or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquitting the second respondent/accused. 11. This Court, on an independent application of mind to the entire materials placed before it, is of the considered view that there is no error or infirmity in the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for acquitting the second respondent/accused. 11. In the result, the revision is dismissed confirming the order of acquittal dated 24.03.2008 made in S.C.No.91 of 2006, on the file of the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.