JUDGMENT N. Sathish Kumar, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellants / accused Nos.1 to 3 as against the conviction and sentence, dated 28.08.2009, made in S.C.No.17 of 2007, by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. 2. There are totally three accused in this case. All the accused were convicted and sentenced as detailed hereunder : Conviction U/s. Sentence Fine amount A-1 and A-2 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act To undergo three years rigorous imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment A-3 342 IPC To undergo one year rigorous imprisonment ------- 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act To undergo three years rigorous imprisonment To pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment (All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.) 3. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows : (i) P.W.1-Sundaram belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. On 29.11.2006 at about 08.30 p.m., while P.W.1 was on his way to his house from the bus stand along with his brother-Murugan, accused Nos.1 to 3 came behind P.W.1 and A-1 held his mouth closed and A-2 strangled his neck with cloth and A-3 held his legs to murder him. Besides, all the accused also uttered the caste name of P.W.1 and said that they wanted to murder him, since he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community. On hearing the hue and cry of P.W.1, his brother-Murugan came and on seeing him, all the accused fled away from the place of occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 lodged a report-Ex.P.1 with P.W.8- Tmt.Ramalakshmi, Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.130 of 2006 for the offences under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, under Ex.P.9-First Information Report and forwarded the First Information Report and complaint to the Court concerned and copy to the superior officers and also sent the injured to the Hospital. (ii) P.W.4-Dr.Aarthi, the Medical Officer, attached to the Primary Health Centre, at the relevant point of time, treated P.W.1 and found two abrasion at the right side of the neck, in respect of which, she issued Ex.P.2-Accident Register copy. (ii) P.W.4-Dr.Aarthi, the Medical Officer, attached to the Primary Health Centre, at the relevant point of time, treated P.W.1 and found two abrasion at the right side of the neck, in respect of which, she issued Ex.P.2-Accident Register copy. (iii) P.W.9-Deputy Superintendent of Police, at the relevant point of time, took up the case for investigation on 30.11.2006, went to the place of occurrence and prepared an Observation Mahazar-Ex.P.4 and rough sketch-Ex.P.10 and thereafter, arrested the accused No.2 on 01.12.2006 and recorded his confession, based on which, recovered M.O.1-Towel under Athatchi-Ex.P.5 and also obtained Community Certificates of P.W.1 and accused Nos.1 to 3, viz., Exs.P.3, 6, 7 and 8 and finally, laid final report as against the accused. (iv) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed as many as four charges under Sections 323, 342, 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.9 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.10 and M.O.1 were marked. (v) When the accused Nos.1 to 3 were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating materials adduced by the prosecution, they denied their complicity in the crime and pleaded innocence. However, they neither choose to examine any witnesses nor to mark any document. (vi) The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the appellants guilty and accordingly, convicted and sentenced them, as stated supra. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/Accused Nos.1 to 3 have come up with this appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the entire prosecution is highly doubtful. Except P.W.1, no other eye witness was examined. The alleged eye witness, namely, Murugan, the brother of P.W.1 has not been examined and the evidence of P.W.1 is also contradicted with his earlier statement in the First Information Report. Hence, it is submitted that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. 5. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence of P.W.1 not only proved the specific overt act against the accused Nos.1 to 3 but also his evidence corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4, the Medical Officer. 5. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence of P.W.1 not only proved the specific overt act against the accused Nos.1 to 3 but also his evidence corroborated by the evidence of P.W.4, the Medical Officer. Hence, the Trial Court has rightly found the accused Nos.1 to 3 guilty for the offences as referred to above. 6. In the light of the above submissions, now, it has to be analysed whether the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Nos.1 to 3 beyond all reasonable doubt? 7. The law was set in motion on the basis of Ex.P.1-report registered at 10.30 p.m., on the date of occurrence, namely 29.11.2006. The evidence of P.W.1 is that while he was returning to his house at 08.30 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 3 came behind and A-1 held his mouth closed and A-2 strangled his neck with cloth and A-3 held his legs. He stated that all the accused abused him with his caste name and said that since he belongs to Scheduled Caste Community, they wanted to murder him. It is the further evidence of P.W.1 that the groceries brought by him were also left in the place of occurrence. However, the Investigating Officer did not find any groceries in the place of occurrence. Another so-called eye witness, namely one Murugan, the brother of P.W.1, has not been examined by the prosecution. Though the First Information Report has been registered on the same day, when carefully seen, absolutely, there is no whisper whatsoever with regard to uttering of caste name of P.W.1 and further, there is no allegation that the accused Nos.1 to 3 attacked P.W.1 only on the ground of caste. Whereas, in the evidence, P.W.1 has totally given a different colour as to the occurrence, which is nothing, but, highly improved version of P.W.1. Further, though the evidence of Medical Officer shows that some ordinary abrasion, which is superficial abrasion, was found on the neck of P.W.1, in her cross-examination, she admitted that there was no mark of strangulation by using the cloth. 8. The above facts clearly indicate that the evidence of P.W.1 that all the accused tried to strangle him in order to cause the death is highly improbable and doubtful. 8. The above facts clearly indicate that the evidence of P.W.1 that all the accused tried to strangle him in order to cause the death is highly improbable and doubtful. However, the fact remains that there was some occurrence took place between the accused and P.W.1 at the relevant point of time, as a result, P.W.1 has sustained some abrasion. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence to show that the accused Nos.1 to 3 have really intended to cause the death of P.W.1, the charge that the accused Nos.1 to 3 made an attempt to commit murder cannot be inferred. In this regard, the Trial Court has rightly found that at the most, the offence under Section 323 IPC alone would be attracted in this case. Further, there was no motive whatsoever attributed against P.W.1 for false implication of the accused Nos.1 to 3 in the alleged occurrence. Therefore, taking into consideration of the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1, I am of the view that the offence under Section 323 IPC alone is made out. 9. Coming to the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, the alleged use of caste name is highly contradictory in view of the earlier statement of P.W.1 in Ex.P.1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 in that regard is highly doubtful. Further, to attract the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, there must be an evidence to the effect that the member of Scheduled Caste was subjected to humiliation or intimidation or attack in the public view. Besides, such instances should have been viewed by others. Absolutely, there is no evidence available on record in this case to show that other people also viewed the alleged abuse of caste name of P.W.1. Therefore, the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the alleged use of abusive language is highly improved one and the same was found missing in Ex.P.1, coupled with the fact that there is no other evidence available on record to show that the others also viewed such abuse. Thus, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act would not be attracted in the case on hand. 10. Thus, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act would not be attracted in the case on hand. 10. Considering the entire aspects, I am of the view that the accused Nos.1 and 2, at the most, would be convicted only for the offence under Section 323 IPC and Accused No.3 under Section 342 IPC and not under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act. Accordingly, this Court hold that the finding of the Trial Court, convicting the accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act is liable to be set aside. However, the conviction imposed by the Trial Court under Section 323 IPC (A-1 and A-2) and 342 IPC (A-3) is sustained. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by P.W.1 and the strangulation also ruled out, in view of the medical evidence, I am of the view that the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court is excessive and the same requires interference. 11. At this juncture, it is stated by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the accused Nos.1 to 3 were already in custody for three months during investigation. 12. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms : (a) The conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act against the appellants/A-1 to A-3 are hereby set aside. (b) The conviction passed by the Trial Court under Section 323 IPC against the appellants 1 and 2 /A-1 and A-2 and under Section 342 IPC against the third appellant/A-3 is hereby confirmed. However, the substantive sentence of imprisonment imposed by the trial Court alone is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants/A-1 to A-3 for the above said offences. In respect of fine amount, the judgment of the Trial Court is hereby confirmed.