JUDGMENT : K.K.Ramakrishnan, J. The appellant, who is the sole accused in S.C.No.352 of 2009, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Sivagangai, filed this appeal challenging the conviction and sentence imposed against him, in S.C.No.352 of 2009, dated 05.12.2018, by the learned Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Sivagangai, and acquit the appellant. 2 . The Brief facts of the prosecution case reads as follows: On 20.07.2006, at 10.00 a.m, when the defacto complainant was irrigating his agricultural land through a channel, the appellant prevented the flowing of water. When the same was questioned by the complainant, the appellant is said to have abused him in filthy language by using his caste name and attacked him with shovel and caused grievous injuries on his leg. Based on which, the defacto complainant gave a complaint before P.W.8. The same was registered in Crime No.314 of 2006, for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 307 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(V) 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. During the course of investigation, P.W.11 got superannuated on 31.07.2006. Thereafter, P.W.12 conducted further investigation and filed the final report. The same was taken on the file in P.R.C.No.55 of 2006 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), 3(1)(v) 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 District and Sessions Court, Madurai. Thereafter, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.72 of 2007. Thereafter, the said case in S.C.No.72 of 2007 transferred from learned District and Sessions Court, Madurai, to learned Sessions Judge (PCR Cases), Sivagangai. The learned Sessions Judge (PCR cases), Sivagangai, has taken it on file in S.C.No.352 of 2009. Then, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. 4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and produced 1 material object as M.O.1. Then, he framed necessary charges and questioned the accused. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. 4.To prove the case, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and exhibited 14 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.14 and produced 1 material object as M.O.1. 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 his 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 05.12.2018 and found the appellant guilty, convicted and sentenced him as detailed below:- Accused Convicted under Section Sentence of Imprisonment/fine imposed Sole Accused 324 of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA), Act, 1989, Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 3(1)(V) of SC/ST (POA), Act, 1989. Rigorous Imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month. 6.Challenging the above said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal. 7. This Court perused the records and the documents adduced by the prosecution and the grounds raised by the appellant and reply made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the impugned judgment. 8. P.W.1 deposed that he belongs to the Schedule Caste Community and on 20.07.2006, at 10.00 a.m, when he was doing agricultural activities on his land situated at Vembathur Village, and he was irrigating the land through the channel and the appellant prevented the flowing of water with a bund. When the same was questioned, the appellant is said to have scolded him by using his caste name and also assaulted him with hoe and caused injuries. Even P.W.2, in her evidence, did not depose that the appellant scolded P.W.1 by using caste name. She only deposed about the assault made by the appellant. Therefore, except the evidence of P.W.1, no other witness is available to support his version. Even P.W.2, in her evidence, did not depose that the appellant scolded P.W.1 by using caste name. She only deposed about the assault made by the appellant. Therefore, except the evidence of P.W.1, no other witness is available to support his version. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ingredients of 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act is not made out and this argument deserves to be accepted. Apart from that there is no evidence available on record that the appellant scolded P.W.1 in public view to constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. 9. To consider the said submission, 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 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.” 9.1. 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).” 9.2. 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).” 9.2. 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 and 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 9.3. In this case, no independent witnesses have been examined to prove the allegation against the appellant that he scolded P.W.1 by calling his caste name in the public view and hence, the prosecution miserably failed to prove that the appellant scolded P.W.1 in the public view as required under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act. 9.4. Apart from that, there was existing dispute relating to the irrigation of the water. There is no evidence available on record to prove that the appellant has caused any mischief to the land of P.W.1. The learned trial Judge in para 15 has held that the prosecution failed to prove the offence under Section 307 IPC and 3 (2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, inadvertently rendered a finding that the prosecution proved the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, in the conclusion paragraph. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 made the false averment that the appellant scolded him by using his caste name and caused damages to the lands of P.W.1 is probable one. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that P.W.1 made the false averment that the appellant scolded him by using his caste name and caused damages to the lands of P.W.1 is probable one. Therefore, the offence under Sections 3(1)(x) & 3(2)(V) of the SC/ST Act, would not attract as against the appellant. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside. 10. P.W.1 clearly deposed about the assault was made by the appellant with MO.1 and the same was corroborated with the medical evidence and therefore, the learned trial judge correctly convicted the appellant under Section 324 of IPC. 11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed on the following terms:- (i) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (PCR Cases), Sivagangai, in S.C.No.352 of 2009, dated 05.12.2018, for the offence under Sections 3(1)(x) & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, is hereby set aside. (ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (PCR Cases), Sivagangai, in S.C.No.352 of 2009, dated 05.12.2018, for the offences under Sections 324 of IPC is hereby confirmed. (iii) The fine amount paid by the appellant in respect of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) & 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, shall be refunded to him.