SHANTHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the defacto complainant in Special S.C.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Madurai. The respondents 2 and 3 are the accused in the case. They stood charged for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(VII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and also under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act. The first respondent filed the final report on which only cognizance was taken in the case. The trial Court, by judgment dated 07.07.2014, acquitted the respondents 2 and 3. Challenging the acquittal of the respondents 2 and 3, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal. This appeal has been admitted under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;

(3.) BASED on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges, as narrated in the first paragraph of the judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 16 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were exhibited and on the side of the accused, one Mr.Veerasami was examined as DW1 and as many as 7 documents were exhibited. Of the witnesses, PW1 ? defacto complainant has spoken about the entire occurrence. PW2 is her husband, who has spoken about the transfer request made and all the other subsequent events. He is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. PW3 is the then Assistant Audit Officer. He has stated about the audit conducted in respect of the accounts of the Madurai Meenakshi Amman Temple between 27.01.2009 to 30.01.2009, but he is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. He has stated that on 03.02.2009 PW1 made a complaint to him about the occurrence between 27.01.2009 and 30.01.2009, but, according to him, on receipt of the complaint, he told PW1 to think it over before presenting the complaint once for all. After few months, according to him, the said complaint was taken back by PW1. The other witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. PW15 has spoken about the registration of FIR and PW16 has spoken about the investigation done.