JUDGMENT : K.K.Ramakrishnan, J. The appellant/Accused No.1 in S.C.No.160 of 2011, on the file of the PCR Court, Sivagangai, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him, in S.C.No.160 of 2011, dated 04.04.2019, by the PCR Court, Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant. 2 . The Brief facts of the prosecution case reads as follows: 2.1. Due to money dispute between the brother of the complainant and the accused, on 22.06.2011, at about 04.00 p.m, when the defacto complainant was proceeding towards his daughter's house, located at Sowmianarayanapuram, Kurunji Nagar, the appellant and other two accused are said to have accosted him and abused him in filthy language by calling his caste name and also attacked him with their hands and a broom and caused injuries. Further, they threatened him with dire consequences. Thereafter, he was admitted in the Government hospital, Thirupathur. For further treatment, he was shifted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.6. The same was registered in Crime No.40 of 2011, for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 355 and 506(i) of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes, Act, 1989 (hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “SC/ST Act”). Thereafter, P.W.12 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.15 of 2011 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur. 2.2. On appearance of the accused, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruppathur, found that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, is triable only by the Sessions Court and committed the case under Section 209(A) of Cr.P.C., to the learned PCR Court, Sivagangai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.160 of 2011. Then, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. 2.3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and marked 1 material object as M.O.1. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after explaining the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. 2.3. To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 13 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13 and marked 1 material object as M.O.1. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after explaining the incriminating evidence against him and he denied the same as false and thereafter, the case was posted for defence evidence. The accused neither produced any documents nor examined any witnesses on their side. 2.4. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellant and the other accused, the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 04.04.2019 and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:- Accused No.1 Convicted under Section Sentence of Imprisonment/ fine imposed 341 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 294(b) of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 323 of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to under Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 355 of PC to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989 Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 3. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 4. This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the records and the impugned judgment and the precedents relied upon by the appellant. 5. According to the appellant, due to the motive, a false complaint was foisted against him and the deposition of P.W.1 that the appellant along with other accused scolded him by using his caste name is a false one. He further submitted that the same was not in public view. To consider the said submission i.e., whether the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, is made out, this Court recapitulates the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. He further submitted that the same was not in public view. To consider the said submission i.e., whether the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, is made out, this Court recapitulates the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State Through Sanding Counsel and Another reported in 2008 8 SCC 435 and and has given the following definition for 'Public View':- “Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view.” 5.1. The above said ratio, laid down by the Hon'ble two Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was confirmed by the Hon'ble three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand And Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. The relevant portion of the above said judgment is as follows:- “what is to be regarded as “place in Public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh V. State. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view(sic).” 5.2. The same has reiterated in the case of Priti Agarwally and Others Vs. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view(sic).” 5.2. The same has reiterated in the case of Priti Agarwally and Others Vs. State of GNCT of Delhi and Others reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 973 and the learned Judge of this Court in Crl.A.234 of 2011 dated 02.08.2024 considered the entire case law has held as follows:- Para No.33 Para No.30 it is implicitly clear that the expression “within public view” should be construed to mean that the insult or humiliation must take place in the presence of or in the proximity of atleast one independent person From the above ratio laid down by the Apex Court, it is manifest that it is not the place which has significance in the term “in any place within public view” and what is more material therein is “within public view”, which literally means that in the said place, excluding relatives or friends, there should be presence of other persons, who are independent of the occasion and who could be termed to be public who could witness the happenings in the said place 6. In this case, no independent witnesses have been examined to prove the allegation against the appellant that he scolded P.W.1 by calling his caste name in the public view. Further, the above allegation is without any evidence corroborative in nature. 7. Apart from that, the case of the appellant is that the defacto complainant falsely made a submission before the respondent police as if he scolded him by calling his caste name. The independent witnesses have been examined and they have not supported the case of the prosecution. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act would not attract as against the appellant. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. PW1 deposed that when he was going to his daughter house located Kurunji Nagar, near place of Kalmettu Medu, the appellant intercepted and scolded and assaulted him with broom stick. The said evidence is cogent and trustworthy. The said evidence is corroborated with medical evidence, the doctor's PW19 clearly deposed about the injuries sustained by PW1. 9. 8. PW1 deposed that when he was going to his daughter house located Kurunji Nagar, near place of Kalmettu Medu, the appellant intercepted and scolded and assaulted him with broom stick. The said evidence is cogent and trustworthy. The said evidence is corroborated with medical evidence, the doctor's PW19 clearly deposed about the injuries sustained by PW1. 9. Therefore this court holds that the prosecution clearly proved to offence under section 341, 294(b), 323, 355 of IPC beyond reasonable doubt and confirms the conviction and sentence imposed against them under section 341, 294(B), 323 and 355 of IPC. 10. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on the following terms:- (i) The conviction and sentence passed by the PCR Court, Sivagangai, in S.C.No.160 of 2011, dated 04.04.2019, for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, is hereby set aside. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the PCR Court, Sivagangai, in S.C.No.160 of 2011, dated 04.04.2019, for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 and 355 of IPC, is hereby confirmed. (iii)The fine amount paid by the appellant in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, shall be refunded to him.