JUDGMENT : K.K.Ramakrishnan, J. The appellant/sole accused in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009, on the file of the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Sivagangai, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009, dated 03.12.2018, by the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant. 2 . The Brief facts of the prosecution case reads as follows: On 17.02.2005, at about 06.00 p.m., due to previous enmity, when the defacto complainant was sprinkling water on the floor in front of her house situated at Chinnavalayankulam, the accused is said to have abused the defacto complainant by calling her caste name. When the same was questioned by the defacto complainant, the appellant assaulted her with a wooden log on her head and caused simple injury. On hearing the alarm made by P.W.1, P.W.2, who is the daughter of P.W.1 came there and tried to prevent the assault. In that process, she also sustained simple injury. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.8. The same was registered in Crime No.89 of 2005, for the offences under Sections 294 (b) and 323 of IPC r/w 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.11 conducted the investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.14 of 2005 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai. 3.On appearance of the appellant, copies of documents relied by the prosecution were furnished to the accused under section 207 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, 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 III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in Special S.C.No.15 of 2006. Then, he framed the necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. Thereafter, the case was transferred from learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009. 4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Thereafter, the case was transferred from learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, to the learned District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai, and the same was taken on file in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009. 4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and exhibited 11 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.11. Thereafter, the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C proceedings after disclosing 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. 5. After considering the material adduced by the prosecution and also hearing the argument of the appellant, the learned trial Judge has passed the impugned order, dated 03.12.2018, and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:- Accused Convicted under Section Sentence of Imprisonment/ fine imposed Sole accused 294(b) of IPC to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 323 of IPC (2 counts) to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. (2 counts) 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. 6. Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 7.This Court considered the rival submission and also perused the records and the impugned judgment and the precedents relied upon by the appellant. 8. Discussion on the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act :- According to the appellant, due to the motive, a false complaint was foisted against him and the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the appellant scolded them by using their 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 recapitulated 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 recapitulated 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 the same is gave 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.” 8.1. 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).” 8.2. 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).” 8.2. 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 8.3. In this case, no independent witnesses have been examined to prove the allegation against the appellant that he scolded P.W.1 by calling her caste name in the public view is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the above such allegation is without any evidence of corroborative nature. 8.4. Apart from that, in view of the strange relationship, the case of the appellant that the defacto complainant falsely made a submission before the respondent police as if he scolded her by calling her caste name is not accepted one. P.W.4 was examined as independent witnesses. He has 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. 9. Discussion on the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC :- To prove the offence under Section 294(b), the prosecution must be proved the following ingredients as stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal & Another Vs K.Lalitha ( 2022 Live Law (SC) 844 ). 9. Discussion on the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC :- To prove the offence under Section 294(b), the prosecution must be proved the following ingredients as stated in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of N.S.Madhanagopal & Another Vs K.Lalitha ( 2022 Live Law (SC) 844 ). para 41:- “Mere abusive, humiliating or defamative words by itself cannot attract an offence under Section 294 (b) IPC . To prove the offence under Section 294 of IPC mere utterance of obscene words are not sufficient but there must be a further proof to establish that it was to the annoyance of others, which is lacking in the case. No one has spoken about the obscene words, they felt annoyed and in the absence of legal evidence to show that the words uttered by the appellants accused annoyed others, it cannot be said that the ingredients of the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC is made out”. 9.1. In this case, according to P.W.1, the appellant scolded her “as a criminal” on the account of her in the murder case. In her cross- examination, she admitted that there is a criminal case under Section 302 IPC pending against her. This Court perused the evidence of P.W.1 and neither finds any utterance of words obscene words or abusive or humiliation or defamative words in her evidence. Therefore, no material allegation found in the deposition of P.W.1 to constitute the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC . Further, this Court finds no material averments to cause annoyance to P.W.1. Hence, in all aspects, this Court is not inclined to accept the finding of the learned trial Judge relating to the conviction under Section 294 (b) of IPC against the appellant and the same is liable to be set aside. 9.2. The offence under Section 323 (2 Counts) of IPC is concerned, P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the injury caused by the appellant and the same was corroborated with the medical evidence. Therefore, this Court concurs with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellant caused injuries to them. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. 9.2. The offence under Section 323 (2 Counts) of IPC is concerned, P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly deposed about the injury caused by the appellant and the same was corroborated with the medical evidence. Therefore, this Court concurs with the finding of the learned trial Judge that the appellant caused injuries to them. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge for SC/ST Act cases, Sivagangai, in Spl.S.C.No.342 of 2009, dated 03.12.2018, for the offences under Sections 294 (b) of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989, is hereby set aside and the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant for the offence under Section 323 of IPC is confirmed. Fine amount paid by the appellant for the offence under Sections 294 (b) of IPC and 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989, shall be refunded to the appellant forthwith. Bail bond executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.