JUDGMENT : (Prayer: This Criminal Revision is filed under Section 397 r/w 401 Cr.P.C., against the judgment and order in S.C.No.146 of 2011 dated 09.03.2012 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court, Cuddalore acquitting the accused/respondents 2 and 3 from the alleged offence under Section 297(1), 323 I.P.C., and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.) 1. The revision petitioner herein is the defacto - complainant, examined as PW-1 in S.C.No.146/2011, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore. The Criminal Revision is preferred against the order of acquittal of the trial Court holding the respondents 2 and 3 not guilty of the charges under sections 294(b), 323 IPC and Section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 2. The defacto complainant who is the victim of crime, aggrieved by the order of acquittal of respondents 2 and 3, is entitled for preferring appeal as per the proviso to section 372 Cr.P.C. Un aware of his right, he has preferred the Criminal Revision. This Court being satisfied that the petition for criminal revision is filed on the erroneous belief that, no appeal lies, in the interest of justice, this Court treats this petition for Criminal Revision as Criminal Appeal, by exercising the power under section 401(5) of Cr.P.C and proceed to deal with the petition accordingly. 3. The revision petitioner herein has given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Ramanantham on 26/12/2010 alleging that he mortgaged his 1.11 cents of land in Survey No.311 for Rs.20,000/- to one Malarkodi w/o Narayanasamy. He already repaid Rs.10,000/-. On 26/12/2010 at about 8.15 hrs when he went to the house of Malarkodi and made offer to pay the balance Rs.10,000/- and asked to give back the land, Malarkodi told him that, he has already sold the property to her and he cannot ask for the property back. She scolded him saying, “xxx”. Her husband, Narayanasamy - (A.2) slapped him twice on his cheek and held his neck and pushed out saying “xxx”. Kumar, the son –in-law of Malarkodi took slippers and said, “xxx”. Malarkodi daughter Kalaiselvi scolded him “xxx” and hit him with broomstick. They all beat him. He went to his maternal uncle village Sakanatham and informed him about the occurrence and thereafter, reached the Police Station to give the complaint. One Arumugam of Sakanatham village was present along with the defacto complainant when the incident took place. Malarkodi daughter Kalaiselvi scolded him “xxx” and hit him with broomstick. They all beat him. He went to his maternal uncle village Sakanatham and informed him about the occurrence and thereafter, reached the Police Station to give the complaint. One Arumugam of Sakanatham village was present along with the defacto complainant when the incident took place. 4. The complaint was given at 19.00 hrs on 26/12/2010. FIR was registered by Thiru.Tamilmaran, the Inspector of Police, Ramanatham Police Station. Copy of the FIR was forwarded to the Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore and the learned Judicial Magistrate Thittakudi. The Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore appointed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thittakudi as the Investigation Officer under Rule 7 (i) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules. Accordingly Thiru.Navin Chandra Nagesh, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the case for investigation; visited the scene of occurrence; prepared an observation mahazar; recorded the statements of witnesses; arrested Malarkodi (A-1) and Narayanasamy (A-2). In his investigation, he found that Kumar and Kalaiselvi the other two persons mentioned in the complaint were not involved in the crime. Hence, he deleted their names and intimated it to the Court. After obtaining the community certificates from the Thasildar of the defacto complainant and the accused persons, filed the final report against A-1 and A-2 for offences under sections 294 (b), 323 IPC and section 3 (1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 5. Before the trial Court, to prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and marked 12 documents. On the side of the accused, a sale deed executed by the defacto complainant in favour of the first accused on 15/09/2005 was marked as EX D-1.6. The trial Court, after appreciating the evidences, held that the prosecution evidence indicates that the alleged incident has taken place at the house of the accused. To attract offence under section 294(b) IPC, the utterance of obscene words, ought to have made in or near a public place and it should have caused annoyance. Since, the evidence in this case does not meet out the ingredients of the charge under section 294(b) of I.P.C., the accused are not guilty. 7. As per the charge, the first accused slapped the defacto complaint (PW-1), on his cheek. The second accused, beat him over his back and left side cheek. Since, the evidence in this case does not meet out the ingredients of the charge under section 294(b) of I.P.C., the accused are not guilty. 7. As per the charge, the first accused slapped the defacto complaint (PW-1), on his cheek. The second accused, beat him over his back and left side cheek. PW-1 when he went for treatment at Tittakudi Government Hospital on 27/12/2010 at about 9.00 am, to Dr. Rajendiran (PW-3) the defacto complainant (PW-1) has alleged that 4 persons assaulted him by chapel, hand and broom stick. He feel pain in his chest. There is no external injury. The version of PW-1 before the Doctor and the testimony before Court are contradictory which disproves the charge of 323 IPC. 8. The intimation about the alleged occurrence on 26/12/2010 was communicated to the Superintendent of Police by the Inspector of Police only on 27/12/2010 as per the reference in the proceedings of Superintendent of Police, Cuddalore. While so, the authorisation – Ex.P-6 to investigate the case under Rule 7 of the SC/ST (POA) Rules has been issued on 26/12/2010 itself. Thus, there is manipulation of the records regarding the dates to suit the convenience of the investigating department becomes patent. 9. Contrarily, the accused have established through Ex D-1 that the defacto complainant PW-1 sold the property to A-1 on 15/09/2005. The version of PW-1 that, he only mortgaged the property and got loan of Rs.20,000/- and after paying Rs 10,000/-, he went to the house of the accused to repay the balance and redeem the property, is contrary to the documentary evidence. PW-1 has suppressed the pendency of Civil Suit in O.S.No.118/2010 before the Civil Court. 10. The earlier representations by the accused to the police authorities about the threat from PW-1, not considered by the Investigating Officer, during his investigation. The prosecution, on one side failed to properly investigate and on the other side done its investigation in an hurried manner and prosecuted the accused persons with bundle of conflicting facts. 11. The above finding of the trial Court is now impugned in this petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that, the trial Court failed to consider the case of the defacto complainant and appreciate the facts, properly. 11. The above finding of the trial Court is now impugned in this petition. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that, the trial Court failed to consider the case of the defacto complainant and appreciate the facts, properly. The accused being money lenders, played fraud on the defacto complainant and fraudulently executed a document of sale and as the matter of fact, PW-1 intend to execute a deed of mortgage. 12. The incident, took place in front of the accused house and it is a public place. The trial Court has failed to consider the sketch of the scene of crime. The Trial Court ought not to have given much credence to the evidence of the Doctor as against the evidence of the patient (PW-1). Since, the reasoning of the trial Court is perverse, the judgment has to be set aside and the accused have to be held guilty and sentenced appropriately. 13. The specific case of PW-1 in the complaint as well as in his testimony is that, he went to the house of the accused, to repay the balance mortgage money to redeem the mortgaged property. He has not disclosed about the Civil suit spending against him or the deed he executed nearly 5 years prior to the occurrence. The investigation has revealed that the complaint contains false averment as against the son and daughter-in-law of the accused persons. Hence, their names were deleted and same duly intimated to the Court, in the course of investigation. 14. The medical evidence does not disclose any external injury on P.W.1 which could correspond the alleged attack by hands and broom stick by the accused. Even according to the complaint, the alleged utterance of obscene words or insulting words clearly indicate that the accused have told him to get out from their house, how dare to come to their house and ask for property etc. While so, the finding of the trial Court is only based on the statement of PW-1 and not on baseless reasoning. 15. The dates found in the proceeding - Ex.P-6 which appears to be anti-dated to entertain the complaint, the visit of PW-1 to the hospital on the next day of the occurrence after lodging complaint to the Police alleging four persons attacked him, is proved to be the creation of PW-1's imagination. 15. The dates found in the proceeding - Ex.P-6 which appears to be anti-dated to entertain the complaint, the visit of PW-1 to the hospital on the next day of the occurrence after lodging complaint to the Police alleging four persons attacked him, is proved to be the creation of PW-1's imagination. The suppression of the pendency of civil litigation and the sale deed he executed five years ago in favour of A-1 and the representations given by A-1 and A-2 anticipating trouble from PW-1, cumulatively has lead to the irresistible conclusion by the trial Court that, PW-1 has initiated the criminal proceeding against the accused with false allegation as a ruse to get back the property alienated by him to the accused five years back. 16. Instead of resorting to the appropriate legal recourse, PW-1 has adopted a crooked devise of implicating the accused persons and his family members. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the accused persons, since, the prosecution initiated by PW-1/the revision petitioner abusing the protective legislation for social cause has been fully exposed, by his own deposition and material suppression. 17. On appreciation of evidence, this Court finds that there is no element of illegality or perversity in the finding of the trial Court. As a result, the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in S.C.No.146 of 2011 dated 09.03.2012 is confirmed. The Criminal Revision is dismissed.