JUDGMENT : G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J. This appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment passed in Spl.Sc.No.267 of 2015 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases Registered under the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 25.01.2015 at about 12.00 noon, the accused while harvesting paddy caused damages to the underground pipe line of the defacto complainant which is situated near the land of all the four accused persons. Therefore, the defacto complainant and his family members questioned the damages caused to the pipeline which was laid by them. Due to which the accused abused the defacto complainant with filthy language by using their caste name. Further the second accused had also beaten the P.W.1 by using wooden log and caused simple injuries. The 3 rd accused assaulted P.W.3 by using sickle and caused injury on his head. The 4 th accused also abused all the persons and also threatened them with dire consequences by using their caste name. The 4 th accused assaulted P.W.3 with a wooden log on his head and caused injuries. A2 and A3 also threatened the defacto complainant and his family members by using weapons and threatened them with dire consequences. 3. Based on the complaint the first respondent registered the F.I.R. in Cr.No.12/2015 for the offences punishable u/s 294(b), 323,324, 506(ii) r/w 3(1) II (R) (S) SC/ST Act. After completion of the investigation the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. 4. In order to prove the charges, the Trial Court had examined 13 witnesses P.Ws.1 to P.W.13 and marked 11 documents Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.11. On the side of the accused no witness was examined and no documents were marked. 5. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidence the Trial Court found the accused 1 to 4 guilty of the offences punishable under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for one year each and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment each. Further the accused 2 to 4 were also found guilty for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C and were sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment each. Further the accused 2 to 4 were also found guilty for the offence under section 324 of I.P.C and were sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment each. Further the A2 and A3 were also found guilty for the offence under section 506(i) of I.P.C and were sentenced to undergo 1 year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment each. Aggrieved by the same the present appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused submits that P.W.1 had laid the pipe line in the appellant’s land. Due to which there was a quarrel and a false complaint has been lodged as against the accused. He further submits that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt beyond reasonable doubt and as such the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. After the occurrence, there was a delay of 8 hours in lodging the complaint. Further there was a delay in reaching the F.I.R to the Court. Even according to the prosecution no ingredient is made out to attract the charge under Section 3(1) (x) of SC/ST(POA) Act. There are contradictions between the deposition made by P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the place and time of occurrence. Further the alleged occurrence did not take place in the public place to attract the offence under Sections 3(1) (x) of SC/ST(POA) Act. All the evidences have alluded their versions before the Court only to wreak vengeance as against the accused. In fact A1 to A3 also sustained injuries during the quarrel and all of them are admitted in the Hospital and the accused had filed a complaint in this regard. Based on the complaint FIR was registered. Further the first respondent failed to find the correct address of the occurrence and filed the final report as against the accused. Further the prosecution had failed to prove the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 3 and also failed to prove the charge under section 324 of I.P.C. Therefore, the entire conviction and sentenced imposed by the Trial Court cannot be sustained and is liable to the set aside. 7. Per Contra the learned Government Advocate submitted that initially on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the first respondent registered the F.I.R in Cr. 7. Per Contra the learned Government Advocate submitted that initially on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the first respondent registered the F.I.R in Cr. No.12 of 2015 for the offences punishable u/s 294(b), 323,324, 506(ii) r/w 3(1) (X) of SC/ST (POA) Act. After registration of the F.I.R the first respondent had conducted investigation and filed a final report for the offences punishable u/s 294(b),323and 506(ii) of I.P.C read with 3(1) (x) of SC/ST (POA) Act and it has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. The defacto complainant has deposed as P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 clearly corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.2 to 4. The other independent eyewitness also clearly deposed and corroborates with the evidence of P.W.1. That apart, the injuries sustained by P.W.1 also corroborated by the Doctor who treated him. Therefore, the prosecution categorically proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offences punishable u/s 324 and 506(i) of I.P.C read with 3(1)(x) SC/ST(POA) Act. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court does not warrant any interference of this Court. 8. Admittedly there was a dispute between the accused and the defacto complainant’s family members in respect of path way and also in laying of pipe line. While being so, on 25.01.2015 at 12.00 noon, the accused damaged the pipe line of P.W.1 which was situated near the land owned by the accused while they were harvesting paddy. It was questioned by P.Ws.1 to 3 for which the accused scolded them with filthy language by using their caste name and also attacked them with a sickle, wooden log and Iron rod. Therefore, P.Ws.1 to 3 sustained injuries and they were taken to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Villupuram. They were treated by P.W.11 and the accident Register was marked as Exs.P.5 to 7. Though the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 3 are simple in nature, they were assaulted by A1 to A4 and they were admitted in the hospital as in-patient. 9. After recording the statement of P.W.1, the F.I.R was registered in Cr.No.12 of 2015. Thus it is clear that in the land owned by P.Ws.1 to 3, there was an underground pipe line. On the date of occurrence when the P.Ws. 9. After recording the statement of P.W.1, the F.I.R was registered in Cr.No.12 of 2015. Thus it is clear that in the land owned by P.Ws.1 to 3, there was an underground pipe line. On the date of occurrence when the P.Ws. 1 to 3 were harvesting their paddy, the accused damaged the pipe line and when it was questioned, the accused attacked and abused the defacto complainant and his family members. Further admittedly, the accused persons belong to other community and P.Ws 1 to 3 belong to SC/ST community. Further the said occurrence took place in a public place i.e in the paddy field, while harvest was taking place and there were so many people near the paddy filed. The community report of the accused is marked as Ex.P.3 and community report of P.Ws.1 to 3 were marked as Exs.P5 to 7. The accident register of the P.Ws. 1 to 3 were marked as Exs.P.5 to 7. All the injured had deposed as P.Ws 1 to 3 and they categorically deposed about the specific overtact about each of the accused. The relevant portion of the deposition is extracted hereunder: 10. Though the P.W.1 was cross examined by the accused, nothing was elicited to disprove the charge. The evidence of P.W.1 also clearly ,corroborated with other prosecution witnesses. P.Ws 1 to 3 are independent witnesses. P.W.4 is the son of P.W1 who had taken all the injured persons, to the hospital by Car. After being provided with First Aid from the Government Hospital, Villupuram, they were sent to Jimper Hospital for further treatment. The observation Mahazar witnesses had deposed as P.Ws. 7 and 8 and clearly supported the case of the prosecution. 11. In order to prove the community of the accused as well as the defacto complainant and his family members, the prosecution had examined PWs.9 and 10 and marked Exs. P.3 and P.4. The Doctor who had examined P.Ws 1 to 3 had deposed as P.W.11 who categorically deposed about the injuries sustained by P.Ws 1 to 3 and had also recorded the same accident register. 12. This evidence also clearly corroborates with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 in respect of the injuries sustained by them. Therefore, the prosecution proved the charges under sections 324, 506(i) of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act. 12. This evidence also clearly corroborates with the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 in respect of the injuries sustained by them. Therefore, the prosecution proved the charges under sections 324, 506(i) of I.P.C and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST(POA) Act. Insofar as the counter complaint is concerned, on the complaint lodged by the first accused, the F.I.R had been lodged in Cr.No.13 of 2015 for the offence punishable u/s 294(b), 323,324 and 506(i) of I.P.C and Section 4 of the Women Harassment Act. After completion of investigation and filing of final report, the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.146 of 2016 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate-II, Villupuram. After full fledged trial the accused were acquitted by the Trial Court by the Judgment dated 12.03.2019. Therefore, there is absolutely no violation in registering the complaint. During investigation the Investigating officer found that both the parties are aggressor to the occurrence and filed a final report. The offence under section SC/ST should be tried by Sessions court and the charges made against P.W.1 and his family members should be tried by the Magistrate. After full fledge Trial, the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Villupuram found the accused not guilty and acquitted by the Judgment dated 12.03.2019 in C.C.No.146 of 2019. Therefore, the prosecution clearly proved the charges and the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 13. In view of the above this appeal is dismissed and the order passed in S.C.No.267 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Special Court for exclusively Trial of cases is hereby confirmed.