JUDGMENT (Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the judgment in Special S.C.No.138 of 2016, dated 17.10.2019 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST Act, Villupuram, set aside the same.) 1. On 27.12.2015, when P.W.12 was on duty at Periyathatchur Police Station, P.W.1, one Munusamy, appeared before him and lodged a complaint to the effect that the complainant, his relatives and neighbours belong to Scheduled Tribe Community. While so, on 24.12.2015, the caste Hindus of the village conducted a Kangaroo panchayat, in which, the accused were made prostrate before the entire caste Hindu population and also were imposed with a fine. There is also previous enmity between both the caste groups. On 25.10.2015, when there was a dispute between one Balaraman and his wife, the accused persons intervened and not only insulted the said Balaraman and the de-facto complainant's son Krishna Murthy, they trespassed into the house and hit them. Thereafter, a case was registered against the de-facto complainant himself in Cr.No.182 of 2015. Therefore, requested to take appropriate action. 2. On the strength of the said allegations, a case in Cr.No.244 of 015 for the offences under Sections 147, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Thereafter, the case was taken up for investigation by P.W.10 and thereafter conducted by P.W.11, who completed the investigation and filed charge-sheet proposing totally nine accused as guilty for the offences under Sections 147, 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(r)&(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was taken on file as Spl.S.C.No.138 of 2016 and charges were framed against all the nine accused and upon being questioned, the accused denied the same and stood trial. Thereafter, the prosecution in order to bring home the charges, examined on Munusamy as P.W.1. P.W.1 is the victim in this case who was insulted in public on the earlier occasion in the month of October, 2015 and who was insulted by the Kangaroo panchayat in the month of December, 2015 and who was made to prostrate before the caste Hindus. P.W.1 deposed to the said effect. P.W.1 is the victim in this case who was insulted in public on the earlier occasion in the month of October, 2015 and who was insulted by the Kangaroo panchayat in the month of December, 2015 and who was made to prostrate before the caste Hindus. P.W.1 deposed to the said effect. The prosecution examined one Balaraman as P.W.2 who was also a victim having been insulted on the earlier occasion and also made to stand before the illegal panchayat in the second occasion and was made to pay the fine. He deposed to the said effect. The prosecution examined one Mallika as P.W.3 who was the wife of P.W.2 who also deposed in tune with P.W.2. The prosecution examined one Velachi as P.W.4 who was the wife of P.W.1 who also spoke on the same lines. The prosecution examined one P.N.Sridhar as P.W.5 who was the official who handed over the report as to the community of the victims as Scheduled Tribes in Ex.P-2. The prosecution examined one Krishnamurthy, the son of P.W.1, as P.W.6, who also spoke on the lines of P.W.1. The prosecution examined one Devanathan as P.W.7 who was the witness to the observation mahazar. P.W.8, Aadimoolam was the other witness to the observation mahazar. The prosecution examined one Uma Maheshwaran as P.W.9 who issued community certificate to the accused who are prosecuted in this case. One Swayambu is examined as P.W.10 who initially took up the case for investigation. Thereafter, one Suruliraja, who carried on the investigation and completed the investigation and filed Final Report, was examined as P.W.11. The Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered F.I.R, was examined as P.W.12. 3. On behalf of the prosecution, Exs.P-1 to P-9 were also marked. Upon being questioned about the material evidence and the incriminating circumstances on record, the accused denied the same as false. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court therefore proceeded to hear the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused and by a judgment, dated 17.10.2019, acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 4 of all the charges. Thereafter, no evidence was let in on behalf of the defence. The Trial Court therefore proceeded to hear the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and the learned Counsel for the accused and by a judgment, dated 17.10.2019, acquitted the accused Nos.1 to 4 of all the charges. As far as the accused Nos.5 to 9 are concerned, while acquitting them in respect of the other charges, they were convicted for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and were imposed with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment and were convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and were imposed with a punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the accused Nos.5 to 9. 4. Heard Mr.A.Balamurugan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr.S.Vinoth Kumar, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing on behalf of the respondent and Mr.S.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant. 5. Mr.A.Balamurugan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that as far as the present case is concerned, there are two sets of allegations which are made. Admittedly, a reading of the complaint as well as the evidence of P.W.1, it can be seen that the incidents which are happened in the month of October have been narrated only to mention about previous enmity and therefore, the same cannot be taken into account. As a matter of fact, he would submit that pursuant to the quarrel which arose on account of the accused admonishing the said Jayapaul for hitting his wife, a retaliatory attack was made on the accused persons by the persons belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community including the de-facto complainant and a case was registered against them in Cr.No.182 of 2015 and it is only the accused who had suffered injuries on the previous occasion. When that being the situation, when there is enmity between the two communities, in this case, it cannot be said that the de-facto complainant and his community members were being targeted or being insulted or being made to face a panchayat or being made prostrate before the entire village. He would submit that even in the cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2, they admitted about the earlier instances of enmity and therefore, this is not a case as if P.W.1 and the other Scheduled Tribe community members are suppressed by the caste Hindus and therefore, he would submit that the entire incident, as narrated by the P.W.1, is doubtful and the case is filed on account of the previous enmity as counterblast when the earlier case is pending as against P.W.1. 6. He would further submit that as far as the second incident is concerned, there was no specific allegation as to who convened the panchayat, who asked P.Ws.1 and 2 to pay the fine or who asked them to prostrate before the caste Hindus. In that view of the matter, when, on the self-same allegations, the Trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.1 to 4, the conviction of accused Nos.5 to 9 alone is unwarranted. In support of this proposition, the learned Counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Makhan Singh Vs. State of Haryana CDJ 2022 SC 864, more specifically relying upon the paragraph No.19 and the same is extracted hereunder:- " 19. It is also relevant to note that the prosecution had not examined Ms. Vani Gopal Sharma (DW1) and K.K. Rao, DSP (DW2). It therefore creates a serious doubt with regard to fairness and impartiality of the IO. Apart from that, it is to be noted that on the basis of very same evidence, the trial court, by giving benefit of doubt, has acquitted the father and mother of the appellant. In that view of the matter, conviction of the appellant on the very same evidence, in our view, was improper." (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would pray that this appeal to be allowed. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. In that view of the matter, conviction of the appellant on the very same evidence, in our view, was improper." (emphasis supplied) Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would pray that this appeal to be allowed. 7. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that this is a clear case where the accused were also involved in convening of the illegal Kangaroo panchayat, in which, P.Ws.1 and 2, being the victims belonging to the Scheduled Tribe community, were made to come before the so-called panchayat and illegally, not only fine was imposed, but, they were also made to prostrate before the entire caste Hindu population. The same amounts to an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Even though in this case, the Trial Court had wrongly convicted the accused under Section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the charges as well as the charge was correctly framed under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act which was the provision in force as on the date of the occurrence. The said provision in Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(r) of the Act are pari materia and carry the same punishment and therefore, there was no prejudice whatsoever on account of the erroneous mentioning of the provision of law. 8. He would further submit that this apart, on the earlier incidents, categorical and individual allegation is made by P.Ws.1 and 2 that the accused Nos.5 to 9 only had insulted the victims by calling their caste name and abusing them with their caste name. Therefore, when the said wordings have been clearly spoken to by P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act stood proved beyond any doubt and the defence could not elicit any favourable answer even in the cross-examination of all the four witnesses and therefore, he would submit that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants and prays for dismissal of the appeal. 9. Mr.S.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the victim would submit that the entire act i.e., the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is enacted with an avowed purpose of removing untouchability and protecting the vulnerable Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population. 9. Mr.S.Senthil Kumar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the victim would submit that the entire act i.e., the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is enacted with an avowed purpose of removing untouchability and protecting the vulnerable Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe population. The instant case is a clear-cut example of the caste Hindus, meeting together and insulting, insinuating, punishing the members of the Scheduled Tribe in a public view and therefore, the offence is a heinous one and in such a view of the matter, this Court should deal with the issue proactively in the matter and should punish the accused Nos.5 to 9. Even though the other accused were let off by the Trial Court, since there are specific allegations as against the accused Nos.5 to 9, there is nothing wrong in the Trial Court punishing the accused for the said offence. Therefore, he would submit that he would pray that this Court should dismiss the appeal. 10. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of either side and perused the material records of this case. A perusal of the charges framed, it would be clear that there were two incidents in this case. It is useful to extract the portion of the charge No.1 as far as the first incident is concerned, which is as follows:-. “TAMIL” 11. In this regard, it may be first seen that in the first incident, the accused has intervened with a genuine intention as P.W.2 was harming his wife and for that, it is alleged that P.W.5, son of P.W.1, had attacked the accused and a case was registered. In this regard, the further evidence on record, in support of this limb of the charge, the evidence of P.W.1, is as follows:-. “TAMIL” 12. Thus, it may be seen that the specific allegation is made of abusing by calling the caste name in respect of six persons and the allegation is made in general as against the six persons and no specific allegation is made individually against them. Of the six persons mentioned in the allegation, Jayapaul and Ramu were not even prosecuted. Nithyanandam was prosecuted as accused No.2, but was however acquitted by the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, on the self-same allegation, the conviction of the appellants alone is unsustainable. Of the six persons mentioned in the allegation, Jayapaul and Ramu were not even prosecuted. Nithyanandam was prosecuted as accused No.2, but was however acquitted by the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, on the self-same allegation, the conviction of the appellants alone is unsustainable. Especially only the name of the accused Nos.5, 6 and 9 alone were mentioned and the names of the accused Nos.7 and 8 is not even mentioned. Therefore, I am of the view that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Makhan Singh's case (cited supra), squarely applies to this limb of this case and therefore, the conviction of the five appellants alone is not sustainable as far as the said allegation is concerned. 13. The second limb of the charge is that the victims, namely P.Ws.1 and 2, were made to face the illegal Kangaroo panchayat and were directed to pay the fine and also were directed to prostrate. The said action, on the part of the caste Hindus, namely all the persons who are responsible for such constitution of panchayat, conduct of panchayat, compelling to pay the fine, making the victims to prostrate, would certainly amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. But, certainly, the prosecution did not investigate and file a Final Report in order to muster any evidence as to who convened the panchayat, who conducted the panchayat, who imposed the fine, who directed the victims to prostrate before the caste Hindus. Even P.Ws.1 and 2, victims, did not mention any specific allegation against any of the persons except to generally narrate the incident. Therefore, in respect of the said limb also, the conviction of the accused Nos.5 to 9 alone is inappropriate especially when there is no specific allegation which is made against them. Even P.Ws.1 and 2, victims, did not mention any specific allegation against any of the persons except to generally narrate the incident. Therefore, in respect of the said limb also, the conviction of the accused Nos.5 to 9 alone is inappropriate especially when there is no specific allegation which is made against them. Therefore, I am of the view that the prosecution, in this case, has miserably failed to properly investigate and bring home the culprits who committed such a grave offence of convening an illegal panchayat and imposing fine and making the hapless victims, P.Ws.1 and 2, members of the Scheduled Tribe community, to prostrate before the entire village and therefore, having no other go, this Court has to interfere with the findings of the conviction on the accused Nos.5 to 9 by the Trial Court inasmuch as the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 14. As far as the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, P.W.2, in his evidence, has pointed out that the accused were present in such a panchayat. Therefore, I hold that if any panchayat is convened by the caste people or any other group of people, with an intention to insult or insinuate or summon the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, such a Kangaroo panchayat by itself is illegal and therefore would amount to unlawful assembly and therefore, the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is still made out as against the accused Nos.5 to 9 and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed in respect of such an offence is maintained. 15. This is a case in which P.Ws.1 and 2 have faced ignominy. Therefore, inspite of the fact that this Court has acquitted the appellants/accused Nos.5 to 9, they will be entitled for proper compensation available to them under the Victim Compensation Scheme under the Act. It is also brought to the notice that they will be entitled for a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, of which, if any sum is not paid and is remaining to be paid, the same has to be paid to the victims, P.Ws.1 and 2. It is also brought to the notice that they will be entitled for a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, of which, if any sum is not paid and is remaining to be paid, the same has to be paid to the victims, P.Ws.1 and 2. This Court is also of the opinion that in future, any cases of this kind of illegal convening of Kangaroo Court, care must be taken by the Investigating Officers to pin-pointedly collect the materials as to the persons who are responsible for convening of such a panchayat, collect materials as to the role played by each and every person who is conducting/participating in the said panchayat and witnessing the shameful incident of insinuating or insulting the member of the Scheduled Tribe. 16. Therefore, the Criminal Appeal is allowed on the following terms:- (i) The conviction and sentence of the appellants/accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of Cases registered under SC/ST Act, Villupuram in Spl.S.C.No.138 of 2016 for the offence under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code is upheld; (ii) The conviction of the appellants/accused Nos.5 to 9 for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is upturned and the appellants are acquitted in respect of the said offences and the fine amount, if any, paid by them is ordered to be refunded; (iii) P.Ws.1 and 2 shall be entitled to the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and if any amount remains unpaid, the same will be disbursed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order; (iv) The Director General of Police is directed to issue proper instructions to the Investigating Officers in matters of convening of caste panchayat/illegal Kangaroo panchayat to collect details as to the particulars of the persons responsible for convening said panchayat, conducting such panchayat and imposing the punishment or insulting the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and also to book every participant in such panchayat for the offence in future.