JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr.M.Jeyaram, learned Legal Aid counsel appearing for the appellants and Ms.J.Ananda Devi, learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondent. 2. This appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment in Spl.S.C.No.111 of 2003 dated 20.09.2007 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. 3. The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 452 of IPC and 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default three months Simple Imprisonment and six months Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default one month Rigorous Imprisonment respectively. The first appellant was also convicted under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default one month Simple Imprisonment and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 4. The case against the appellants is that the complainant belong to Hindu Pallar community and the first appellant herein belong to Muslim Lebbai community and the second appellant herein is a member of Christian Sanar community. On 28.02.2003 at about 08.00 p.m., due to previous enmity, the appellants entered into the residence of the complainant and uttered “TAMIL” and the first accused attacked the complainant with aruval on his head and the case was registered against the first appellant for the offences under Sections 452, 294(b) and 324 of IPC r/w. Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (PA)Act and second appellant for the offences under Sections 452 and 294(b) of IPC r/w. 3(1)(x) of SC/St Act. 5. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that the appellants were acquitted under Section 294(b) of IPC, giving benefits of doubt under Section 235(1) of Cr.P.C. It is stated that all the witness are interested witness. It is further stated that as per the medical report, all the injuries are only lacerated injuries and the hospital intimation was not sent to the Court. The Medical Officer deposed that M.O.1 aruval was not shown to him. P.W.8 has deposed that there is no specific identification mark and that the weapon and the blood strain on the spot is not shown in the Observation Mahazer or in the sketch. 6. The Medical Officer deposed that M.O.1 aruval was not shown to him. P.W.8 has deposed that there is no specific identification mark and that the weapon and the blood strain on the spot is not shown in the Observation Mahazer or in the sketch. 6. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the evidence of P.W.1 is co-related with the evidence of P.W.2. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 co-relates with the evidence of P.W.3. P.W.3, Doctor deposed that the complainant has got simple injuries. On the confession of A1, M.O.1 aruval was recovered from A1. The seizure Mahazer is proved by the witness and prayed that the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the side of the appellants, it is stated that complainant had illicit intimacy with one Rani. When the accused contempt the same and caught hold of him and produced him before the Police, the complainant bite the finger of the accused and run inside his house and dashed against the door and sustained injuries. P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that the accused used the caste name to humiliate the complainant. 8. On the side of the respondent, it is stated that the appellants caused injuries to the complainant. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 was co-related by the evidence of P.W.3. Ex.P2 is the accident register. Ex.P2 reveals that there are simple injuries and the weapon was also seized by the Investigation Agency. 9. Records perused. A perusal of the records reveals that the community Certificate Ex.Ps.3 to 5 reveals that the complainant belong to SC/ST community and A1 and A2 did not belong to the particular community. A perusal of the Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989 reveals that a person who intentionally insult or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view is liable to be punished under this particular section. As per the prosecution, the place of occurrence is the house of the complainant. It is the specific case of prosecution that the appellants entered into the residential house of the complainant and uttered the caste name. P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1. Except P.Ws.1 and 2, no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution. As per the prosecution, the place of occurrence is the house of the complainant. It is the specific case of prosecution that the appellants entered into the residential house of the complainant and uttered the caste name. P.W.2 is the daughter of P.W.1. Except P.Ws.1 and 2, no independent witnesses are examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 deposed that the accused trespassed into the house and scolded him in filthy language using the caste name. P.W.1 in his cross examination has stated that the occurrence took place in the kitchen of the house of the complainant. P.W.2 has deposed that at the time of occurrence, P.W.1 was eating in the kitchen. The place of occurrence, as per the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, is the kitchen in the house of the complainant. As per the prosecution, no public person has any chance to know the occurrence. Hence, the offence is not within public view. The offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act is not proved by the prosecution. 10. P.Ws.1 and 2 has deposed that A1 and A2 scolded them in filthy language and A1 and A2 are charged for an offence under Section 294(b) of IPC, which reads as follows: “(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene songs, ballad or words, in or near any public place,” 11. As discussed above, the place of occurrence is inside the kitchen of the house of the complainant. Hence, the place of occurrence is not in or near public place for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC is not clearly proved by the prosecution. 12. P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that both the appellants trespassed into the house of the appellants, with an intention to cause him hurt. Hence, it is decided that the offence under Section 452 of IPC is proved by the prosecution. 13. Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 reveals that accused attacked P.W.1 with aruval. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Ex.P.2 reveals that P.W.1 sustained simple injuries. In the above circumstances, the decision of the lower Court that the appellants are guilty under Section 324 of IPC, is sustainable. 14. For the above reasons, this Court is inclined to modify the Judgment passed by the Sessions Court, the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and also under Section 294(b) of IPC. In the above circumstances, the decision of the lower Court that the appellants are guilty under Section 324 of IPC, is sustainable. 14. For the above reasons, this Court is inclined to modify the Judgment passed by the Sessions Court, the appellants are acquitted of the charges under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act and also under Section 294(b) of IPC. The appellants are found guilty of the offence under Sections 452 and 324 of IPC. The appellants were convicted under Sections 452 and 324 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 452 of IPC and are sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment under Section 324 of IPC. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellants is to be deducted. If the appellants is not in duress, the trial Court is directed to take steps to secure him in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. 15. With the above observation, this criminal appeal is partly allowed. The trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps so as to the incarcerate the appellants in prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence. Excess fine amount if any paid by the appellants shall be refund forthwith. The Registry is directed to send this order copy to the lower Court immediately.