JUDGMENT This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants in S.C.No.44 of 2012 by judgment dated 15.03.2019, by the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for PRC Cases (Sessions Court), Sivagangai. 2. The accused in S.C.No.44 of 2012, on the file learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for PRC Cases, Sivagangai District have filed this Criminal Appeal challenging the following conviction and sentence imposed on them by the impugned judgment dated 15.03.2019 in S.C.No.44 of 2012, by the learned Judge, Special Court for PRC Cases, Sivagangai District. Sl. No Accused No. Offence Punishable under Section Sentence of Imprisonment and fine 1 A1 & A2 294(b) of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. 2 A1 & A2 323 of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. 3 A1 & A2 354 of IPC 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment. 4 A1 & A2 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment. 5 A1 & A2 3(1)(Xi) of SC/ST Act, 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment. 6 A3 294(b) of IPC To pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month rigorous imprisonment. 7 A3 3(1)(X) of SC/ST Act, 1 year of Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 1 month Rigorous imprisonment. 3.On 19.10.2011 at about 05.00 p.m., while P.W.1 was returning home after grazing cattle A1 to A3 had abused her with filthy language and insulted her by her caste name and A1 had caught hold the hair of P.W.1 and had beaten her with hands and when P.W.2 her mother in law came to her rescue A3 & A2 had beaten her with hands. Hence a case was registered in Crime No. 71 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X), 3(1)(Xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. Hence a case was registered in Crime No. 71 of 2011 on the file of the first respondent police for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X), 3(1)(Xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989. After investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report before the Special Court for PCR Cases, Sivagangai The same was taken on file in S.C.No.44 of 2012. 4.In the meantime, A1 herein has given a complaint in this regard at the very same police station, which was taken on file in Crime No.70 of 2011 and after conducting investigation, final report was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirupthur. The same was taken on file in S.T.C.No.32 of 2013. On 13.11.2014, the same was dismissed. 5.After appearance of the accused, copies of records were furnished to them under Section 207 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, on perusal of records and on hearing both sides and being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused/appellants, framed charges under Sections 294(b), 323, 354 of IPC and Section 3(1)(X), 3(1)(Xi) of the SC/ST Act, 1989 and the same were read over and explained to them and on being questioned, the accused/appellants denied the charges and pleaded not guilty and stood for trial. 6. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined 16 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.16 and exhibited 12 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.12 and no material objects were marked. On the side of the appellant D.W.1 was examined and Ex.D1 was marked. 7.The learned Trial Judge after completion of the examination of the prosecution witnesses questioned the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., by putting incriminating materials available against them in the prosecution evidence and the appellants denied as false. The learned trial judge, after considering the same, convicted the appellants as stated above. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions: The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on the same day, 19.10.2011, at 05.00 pm., P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4 herein had abused the first appellant herein with filthy language and had beaten A1 with slippers. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants made the following submissions: The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that on the same day, 19.10.2011, at 05.00 pm., P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.4 herein had abused the first appellant herein with filthy language and had beaten A1 with slippers. A1 herein had given a complaint in this regard at the very same police station, which was taken on file in Crime No.70 of 2011 and the same was tried as S.T.C. No.32 of 2013 dated 13.11.2014, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tirupathur and ended in acquittal, and this case is the counter case for the same crime number. 8.1.P.W.1 in her cross examination had categorically admitted that she is converted to Christianity and she goes to church and in such a case, entire prosecution failed since this benevolent provision of SC/ST Act is only for Hindu SC/ST people. 8.2.P.W.1 and P.W.2 had never stated that they were insulted by using their caste in public view and that any other third persons witnessed the same and on this ground also the benefit should be given. Therefore, he seeks to allow this appeal by acquitting the appellants herein. 9. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor made the following submissions: The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that there was a specific averment in the complaint relating to the abuse of the caste name. The Court below was correct in convicting the appellant for the charged offenses. Therefore, he seeks to confirm the Judgment passed by the Court below. 10. This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record and also the precedents relied upon by them. 11. The question in this case is whether the prosecution has established the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and the Learned trial judge's conviction and sentence is sustainable or not? 12.It is the specific case of the appellant that prior to the date of occurrence, P.W.1's husband P.W.4, who he is an electrician, is said to have fixed the light in the electricity post, and the same was questioned by the appellant. Thereafter, there was some quarrel between them. 12.It is the specific case of the appellant that prior to the date of occurrence, P.W.1's husband P.W.4, who he is an electrician, is said to have fixed the light in the electricity post, and the same was questioned by the appellant. Thereafter, there was some quarrel between them. Subsequently, on 19.10.2011, at about 05.00 pm., P.W.1 was returning to her house after grazing her cattle when the accused is said to have assaulted her by abusing her caste name, and also he assaulted P.W.3 when she intervened in the said occurrence. But, according to the appellant, P.W.2 and his son assaulted the appellant with slippers for the reason that he questioned him on 17.10.2011. To prove the said fact, they produced Ex.D1 and also examined D.W.1. D.W.1 clearly deposed that both P.W.1 and P.W.4 assaulted the first appellant with slippers. Therefore, he gave a complaint, and the same was registered in crime No.70 of 2011 for the offenses under Sections 341, 294(b), and 354 of IPC. The same was admitted by P.W.1 in her cross-examination, which reads as follows: 13.Similarly, P.W.3 also admitted the same, which is as follows: 14.P.W.4 also confirmed the same, which is as follows: 15.From the above evidence, it appears that P.W.1 suppressed the entire fact. In the said circumstances, this Court further perused the evidence of D.W.1; in the cross-examination, they put a suggestion that the case ended in acquittal. Considering the above facts, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has suppressed the material facts. Prosecution witnesses suppressed the genesis of the occurrence, and hence, this Court inclines to hold that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the allegation made against the appellants to constitute the charged offense. P.W.1 in his cross-examination admitted as follows: 16.From the above reading of evidence, the charge under the Special Act, namely, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, is not made out. Apart from that, all the prosecution witnesses clearly deposed that in the said village there is no discrimination on the basis of caste. In the said circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the appellant scolded them by using the caste name is unbelievable, and in the considered opinion of this Court their evidence lacks the credibility and trustworthiness. Apart from that, all the prosecution witnesses clearly deposed that in the said village there is no discrimination on the basis of caste. In the said circumstances, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the appellant scolded them by using the caste name is unbelievable, and in the considered opinion of this Court their evidence lacks the credibility and trustworthiness. The relevant evidence is as follows: 17.In view of the above evidence, the case of P.W.1 and P.W. 2 against the appellant is not acceptable. They made such false allegations only to escape from the registration of the FIR against them in Crime No.70 of 2011 for the alleged assault made against the appellant with slippers. Therefore, the prosecution failed to prove the charged offences. 18.Relating to the registration of the FIR, it is admittedly the appellant's complaint is earlier in time. Thereafter, they made the complaint belatedly, and the same is proved through the different version relating to preferring of the complaint. P.W.1 deposed that P.W.3 gave the complaint. P.W.1 deposed that she gave the complaint. But P.W.3 deposed that he wrote the complaint. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) has not been established by the prosecution. More particularly, the occurrence have not taken place in public view as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in various judgments and the same are as follows:- 18.1. Rabindra Kumar Chhatoi Vs. The State of Odisha & Another in SLP.(Crl.)No.1608 of 2020 “ On a reading of the same, it is evident that the intention to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe must be “in any place within public view”. There is no doubt that the second respondent herein, is a member of the Scheduled Caste. The question is, whether, the alleged utterances by the appellant herein, was in any place within public view. It is noted that when the second respondent sought to repair her house which is adjacent to the appellant's house along with her employees (Labourers) and went into the appellant's house without seeking his prior permission, it was objected to by the appellant herein. The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the backyard of the appellant's house. Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view. The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the backyard of the appellant's house. Backyard of a private house cannot be within the public view. The persons who accompanied the second respondent were also the employees or the labour force she had engaged for the purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is adjacent to the appellant's house. They cannot also be termed as public in general.” 18.2. Swaran Singh and Others Vs. State Through Sanding Counsel and Another reported in 2008 8 SCC 435 “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.” 18.3. 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).” 18.4. The same has been 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).” 18.4. The same has been 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 19.Even as per the above evidence, there was no caste discrimination in the said village. In view of that, this Court is inclined to acquit the appellants under Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act. This Court holds that the prosecution has not proved the offence of assault by A1 and A2 under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC. This Court disbelieves the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the appellant scolded them abusing the caste name. They only filed a false case against the remaining appellant in order to escape from the allegation against him in crime No.70 of 2011 that he had assaulted the first appellant with slippers. 20.In view of that, this Court is also inclined to hold that the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is not maintainable. In view of the inherent infirmity in the prosecution case relating to the registration of the complaint, this Court is inclined to acquit the appellants. 21 . 20.In view of that, this Court is also inclined to hold that the conviction under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is not maintainable. In view of the inherent infirmity in the prosecution case relating to the registration of the complaint, this Court is inclined to acquit the appellants. 21 . Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands allowed on the following terms: (i) the conviction and sentence of imprisonment imposed against the appellants 1 & 2 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323, 354 and Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act 1989 and against the third appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act 1989, by the learned Special Judge, Special Court for PCR Cases, Sivagangai, vide judgment dated 15.03.2019, is set aside and the appellants are acquitted from all the charges framed against them. Fine amount paid by the appellants shall be refunded to them forthwith. (ii) Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand terminated. The appellants shall be released forthwith, if their presence is not required in any other case.