JUDGMENT Krishnan Ramasamy, J. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in S.C.No.58 of 2005, dated 27.11.2007. 2. The accused Nos.1 and 2, in the Court of learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District, are the appellants herein. The accused were prosecuted by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District for the alleged Commission of offences Under Sections 294(b) and 427 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribune (PA) Act (herein after called as 'Act'). The trial Court vide judgment dated 27.11.2007 has convicted them for the commission of the said offences and imposed the following sentence : Offence under Section Offence under Section Section 294(b) IPC 3 months Rigorous Imprisonment. Section 427 IPC 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of one month Simple Imprisonment. Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST Act 6 months Rigorous Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default sentence of one month Simple Imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently and set off was also granted under Section 428 Cr.P.C. 3. The facts leading to the filing of this appeal briefly narrated are as follows: 3.1. P.W.1-Perumal is the defacto complainant and he is a resident of Chidambarapuram and belongs to Hindu Pallar Community of the Scheduled Caste. Both the accused are also the resident of the said Chidambarapuram and they belonged to Hindu Nadar Community. On 09.06.2005 at about 11.30 p.m., the Kodai Festival of Ooikattusamy was being celebrated, at that time the accused Baskar and Kalidoss went there and looking at the Pallar people including P.W.1 abused and ridiculed them by mentioning their caste and in the course of the same transaction, the accused pushed down the poles and smashed tube lights fastened to the pandal. The value of the tube lights is about Rs. 250/-. When P.W.1 and Others persuaded them, the accused abused and insulted P.W.1 and Others by using unparliamentary language. 3.2. The Temple belongs to Pallar Community People and at the time of incident, P.W.1 and Others were fastening the poles inside the Temple Pandal for the purpose of Kombattam. Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P.1 at Kalakkadu Police Station. P.W.4-Muthukrishnan also signed as attesting witness in Ex.P.1-complaint. 3.2. The Temple belongs to Pallar Community People and at the time of incident, P.W.1 and Others were fastening the poles inside the Temple Pandal for the purpose of Kombattam. Thereafter, P.W.1 preferred the complaint, which was marked as Ex.P.1 at Kalakkadu Police Station. P.W.4-Muthukrishnan also signed as attesting witness in Ex.P.1-complaint. On receipt of the complaint, P.W.8-Rajavel, the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kalakadu Police Station, registered a case in Crime No.245 of 2005 for the commission of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 427 IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribne (PA) Act. The printed FIR was marked as Ex.P.6. 3.3. P.W.8 sent the FIR along with the complaint to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri and the copies of the FIR to the Deputy Superintendent of police, Nanguneri. On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.9-Suresh Kumar, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nanguneri Sub Division took up the case for investigation and visited the place of occurrence on 10.06.2005 at 7.45 to 8.00 a.m. In the presence of witnesses, he preferred Observation Mahazar and Rough Sketch, which are marked as Exs.P5 and P7 respectively. At about 9.15 a.m., in the presence of the same witnesses, he recovered the broken tube light pieces under Ex.P.8-Athachi. M.O.1 series are the broken tube light pieces. 3.4. On the same day, P.W.9 examined the witnesses Chelliah, Perumal, Muthukrishnan, Muruganandham, Kumar, Arumugam, Mahendran and recorded their statements. On 11.06.2005, P.W.9 arrested both the accused and sent them to judicial custody. Thereafter, the Deputy Superintendent of Police examined the Sub Inspector of Police and recorded his statement. On 25.06.2005, the Community Certificate were obtained for the accused and P.W.1 and also examined the Tahsildar, who issued the Community Certificate and recorded his statement. P.W.9 on completion of investigation has filed the final report before the Committal Court. 3.5. In order to substantiate the charges, at the time of trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses and marked 8 exhibits and one Material Object. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied them as false and no defence witness was examined. 3.6. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. They denied them as false and no defence witness was examined. 3.6. The Trial Court, on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, has found the appellant/accused guilty of all charges framed against them and sentenced him as stated above. Challenging the legality of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, the accused have filed this appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned counsel for the appellants/accused submitted that on mere perusal of the complaint would show that there was no specific overt act in the complaint. Further, most importantly, Ex.P.1 did not specify that utterance of words by the appellants against any individual member as required under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. On mere perusal of the complaint clearly shows that the accused have not made any statement against any individual member. Further, the examination of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, who are the eye witnesses never deposed anything about the specific utterance against any of a member of the Scheduled Caste. The defacto complainant deposed that when they were making arrangements for the Kodai festival, due to the rain, inside the temple pandal, at that point of time, both the accused smashed tube lights. When they asked about the occurrence, the accused abused them by saying their caste name and by using unparliamentary words as xxxxxxxxxxxxx The value of the tube lights smashed is Rs. 250/-. 6. From the perusal of the deposition of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, the following facts are cleared:- 6.1. The accused were not utterred any unparliamentary words as stated above against any individual member including the defacto complainant. There was no specific allegations against any of the accused pertaining to whom they uttered or any specific member of the SC/ST. Further, who was the owner of the tube lights, which were smashed by the accused also not mentioned. Even the eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 also not specified any of the accused independently or any of a member of the Scheduled Caste in terms of Section 3(x) (1) of the Act. Further, who was the owner of the tube lights, which were smashed by the accused also not mentioned. Even the eye witnesses viz., P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 also not specified any of the accused independently or any of a member of the Scheduled Caste in terms of Section 3(x) (1) of the Act. Further, all other eye witnesses also not mentioned anything about as to who is the owner of the tube lights. 6.2. The examination of P.Ws.2, 3 and 6 to 9 also not established any case against the accused pertaining to whether the accused abused the defacto complainant and Others by saying their caste name and by using unparliamentary language, against any specific member of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community. It was the case of the prosecution that the accused uttered the words in the public. Either the eye witnesses or the other prosecution witnesses failed to establish that the accused uttered words against any individual member of the caste in order to fulfill Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Further, all the eye witnesses have deposed that the accused uttered the words in the crowd. Therefore, they have construed as if they have uttered the words against the individual member. Relevant provisions of the Act, read thus:- "3. Punishment for offence of atrocities- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe:- (i) xxxx (ii) xxxxx (iii) xxxxx (iv) xxxxx (v) xxxxx (vi) xxxxx (vii) xxxxx (viii) xxxxx (ix) xxxxx (x) intentionally insults of intimidates with intent or humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view." 7. A plain reading of the sub Section (x) brings out that if the utterance of words was not directed against a member of SC/ST, but against a group of members of SC/ST or the community as a whole, the provision will not attract. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that no doubt, in the present case, the utterance of the accused is only against the crowd, not against any specific individual members, which was clear from the deposition of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5, who are the eye witnesses. As long as the accused have not made any utterance, as alleged in the complaint, against any individual member of SC/ST, the same cannot be construed as an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. As long as the accused have not made any utterance, as alleged in the complaint, against any individual member of SC/ST, the same cannot be construed as an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In the present case, the prosecution has not proved the utterance of the words as alleged in the complaint by the accused against any of the individual member of SC or ST. Therefore, since the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused and therefore, he prayed that the Judgement of the lower Court has got to be set aside. 9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the appellant referred the Judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in SHRI D.P. VATS v. STATE, wherein it was held that the meaning of Section 3(1)(x) of Act, is that the utterance of the words with the intention to insult a member of SC/ST. The word 'a member' occurring in the provision assumes crucial importance in this context and leaves no scope for doubt that it must be directed against the individual member and not against a group of members or the crowd or the public in general though these may comprise of SC/ST. Further, in the said Judgement it was held that if it is made in generalised terms against all and sundry and is not individual specific in the name of caste, it would not make out an offence under Section 3(1)(x), the rationale being that intensional insult, intimidation and humiliation made in the name of caste was liable to be caused to a person and in this case to an individual member of SC/ST and not to a group of members or public in general.' 10. In the case on hand, the admitted case of the prosecution is that the accused uttered the words in the public and that in any of the eye witnesses or the other prosecution witnesses have not established that the accused uttered words against any individual member of the SC/ST caste in order to fulfill the requirement of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above decision, is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Therefore, the principle laid down in the above decision, is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case. Accordingly, following the said decisions, this Court is of the view that the appellants/accused are liable to be acquitted for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 11. The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant under Section 427 of IPC and imposes a fine for causing damage to the tube lights worth about Rs. 250/-. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant advanced his arguments stating that in the present case, it was stated in the complaint that the tube lights were damaged by the petitioners but it was not known who is the owner of the tube lights and that the said owner was neither examined nor made any complaint to the Police. 13. As regards the charge levelled against the Revision Petitioner/Accused in respect of an offence under Section 427 of IPC, viz., 'mischief, causing damage to the amount of Rs. 250/-', this Court very relevantly points out that when the owner of the tube light did not come forward to file a case against the loss of his properties and the prosecution also not taken any steps to prove that whose properties were damaged. As long as the owner of the property failed to give complaint it is not for the prosecution to ascertain the value of damaged properties of tube lights and file complaint without examining the owner of the property. Hence, this Court is of the view that the value of the tube lights, which were allegedly broken by the Revision Petitioners/Accused was not proved by examining the concerned owner/keeper and as such, this Court holds that the charge levelled against the Revision Petitioners/Accused under Section 427 of IPC, was not proved by the prosecution. Under these circumstances, the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond doubt. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to acquit the appellants/accused for the offence under Section 427 of IPC. 14. With regard to the charge under Section 294(b), P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 are cited as eye witnesses in this case. But the name of P.Ws.4 and 5 were not mentioned in the FIR. P.W.1 has admitted that after the occurrence, a village meeting was conducted and after elaborate discussion only, he gave the complaint. 14. With regard to the charge under Section 294(b), P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 are cited as eye witnesses in this case. But the name of P.Ws.4 and 5 were not mentioned in the FIR. P.W.1 has admitted that after the occurrence, a village meeting was conducted and after elaborate discussion only, he gave the complaint. Further, the evidence of P.W.1, is not corroborated with the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5 on the aspect of utterance of the words by the accused. Therefore, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 4 and 5 are not trustworthy. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 15. Thus, this Court is of the considered opinion there are lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution. The said doubts have not been cleared by the prosecution. The appellants/accused are therefore, entitled for the benefit of the above doubts. Thus, all would go to show that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Therefore, this Court is constrained to set aside the Judgment, dated 27.11.2000 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, Tirunelveli District in S.C.No.58 of 2005. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed by setting aside the lower Court's Judgment. The appellants are acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. They are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. The fine amount, if paid is ordered to be refunded to the appellants. The bail bonds executed, if any, shall stand cancelled.