SUNDARESAN Vs. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal revision is filed against the order of acquittal of the accused for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 in SC. No. 101 of 2002. The petitioner herein is the defacto complainant, who set the law in motion by lodging the complaint against the respondents 2 and 3 for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 (herein after referred to as "Act") and Section 506(1) r/w. 109 IPC in respect of the occurrence allegedly taken place on 8.00 p.m. on 15.10.1999 at the backyard of the house of the defacto complainant, in the course of which, second respondent allegedly insulted the defacto complainant by calling him by his caste name.

(2.) The prosecution, in order to prove the allegation raised against the accused, examined the defacto complainant, his wife, his close relatives and other revenue and police officials as PW 1 to PW 11 and produced the complaint, observation mahazar, community certificate, FIR in Cr. No. 14/1999 and transferred as Cr. No. 668/1999 and rough sketch as Exs. P1 to P9 but no oral evidence was adduced and the notice issued by Palacode sugar factory to PW 2 was marked as Ex. D1 on the defence side. The Trial Court on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, disbelieved the prosecution case and found the accused not guilty of the offence and acquitted them. Aggrieved against the same, the defacto complainant/PW 1 preferred the present criminal revision before this Court.

(3.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the order of acquittal of the accused is totally erroneous and perverse and without considering the oral evidence of the prosecution side witnesses in proper prospective and the omission to do so resulted in erroneous judgment of acquittal of the accused.