JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent on both sides, the appeal is taken up for hearing at the admission stages itself. 2. Heard Mr. J. Senthil Kumaraiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. K. Suyambulinga Bharathi, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondent. 3. This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment of conviction of the appellant for the offence alleged under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC passed in Spl. S.C. No. 72 of 2017 dated 23.03.2018 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court (PCR), Madurai. 4. The case of prosecution is that on 28.12.2016, the defacto complainant dig a pit for burial of a cadaver but failed to close the pit after the burial and when the accused questioned the same scolded the defacto complainant in filthy language and beat him with a stick and caused simple injuries and insulted him using his caste name and caused damage worth about Rs. 50/- to the house of the complainant and criminally intimated him. The charge sheet was filed under Sections 294(b), 427, 323 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)3(1)(s)(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. After enquiry, the trial Court convicted the accused under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC and acquitted him of all the charges under Sections 427 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)3(1)(s)(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and thereby sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred only) in default to undergo seven days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC and to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 323 of IPC. 5. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that PWs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 turned hostile and PWs. 12, 13 and 14 are not supporting the case of prosecution. There is contradiction between the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. From the above observation, it is clear that PW-3 is not an occurrence witness. 6. 5. On the side of the petitioner, it is stated that PWs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 turned hostile and PWs. 12, 13 and 14 are not supporting the case of prosecution. There is contradiction between the evidence of PW-2 and PW-3. From the above observation, it is clear that PW-3 is not an occurrence witness. 6. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that there are contradictions regarding the weapons used in the occurrence. PW-2 in his cross examination, has stated that PW-11, Doctor has deposed that PW-2 gave him a statement that he was attacked with a wooden log. 7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the Doctor has deposed that there is no external injury on the body of PW-2 and that PW-2 has stated that he is having backache. In the cross examination, the Doctor has deposed that it is argued that the injuries are not proved as there may be chance for the PW-2 to give a false statement before the Doctor. PW-2 has stated that there was injury in the hip and leg. There is contradiction regarding the injury as stated by the PW-2 and PW-11. 8. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that PW-10 has deposed that he registered the FIR after examining the PW-2 in the Government Hospital, Usilampatti but the complaint was recorded by Thuraiyur Police Station. The time of the occurrence and time of FIR as noted by the prosecution and evidence of PW-15 and PW-10 are contradicting each other. 9. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the prosecution has examined the witnesses PWs. 1 to 15 and marked Ex.Ps.1 to 10. PW-2 is the injured person. PW-3 is the wife of PW-2 and that the evidence of PW-2 co-relates with the evidence of PW-11. Though some witness turned hostile PW-1 has given clear evidence and conviction on the basis of the deposition. PW-1 is sustainable and that the occurrence did not took place in the public place and hence, the case was acquitted in the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2005 and that minor discrepancies will not affect the case of the prosecution. 10. PWs. 4, 7, 12 and 14 turned hostile. The Community Certificate of PW-2 is marked as Ex.P.1. PW-10 registered a FIR, Ex.P.6. 10. PWs. 4, 7, 12 and 14 turned hostile. The Community Certificate of PW-2 is marked as Ex.P.1. PW-10 registered a FIR, Ex.P.6. PW-11 is the Doctor who gave treatment. PWs. 10 to 12 are Official witness. PW-15 is the Investigating Officer. PWs. 2 and 3 alone have deposed regarding the occurrence. The evidence of PWs. 2 and 3 reveals that PW-2 was not present in the place at the time of occurrence. PW-3 herself has admitted that she is not present at the time of occurrence. The evidence of PW-3 cannot be relied upon. The evidence of PW-2 regarding the injury contradicts the evidence of PW-11. PW-11 has stated that there is a chance for the complainant to have given false statement regarding the pain. There is no external injury which is made clear in Ex.P6. The Section 294(b) of IPC indicates that a person must have used abusing words in the presence of public place. The place of occurrence is not a public place and hence, Section 294(b) of IPC is not made out. There are contradictions regarding the weapon used and regarding the injury caused to the complainant. There is no eye witness except PW-2. The evidence of PW-11 and evidence of PW-2 is contradictory and hence, the offence under Section 323 is also not made out. Already trial Court has acquitted the appellant from the charges under Section 427 of IPC and Section 3(1) (r)3(1)(s)(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe (Prevention Of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 11. From the above circumstances, it is made clear that the allegation levelled against the appellant under Sections 294(b) and 323 of IPC is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant is liable to be acquitted of this charges. For the above reasons, the criminal appeal is allowed and the order passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is entitled for refund of the fine amount paid by him before the lower Court. Consequently, Crl. M.P. (MD) No. 3091 of 2018 is closed.