R. Mala, J. - (1.)THE Criminal Appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.09.2007 in Spl.S.C. No. 34 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Court (Special Court), Coimbatore, whereby the accused was convicted and sentenced as follows:
(2.)THE case of the prosecution based on the prosecution witnesses is as follows:
(i) On the side of the prosecution, P.W. 1 to P.W. 13 were examined and Exs. P1 to P9 were marked.

(ii) P.W. 1/Karuppaiya is the resident of Alampalayam and he is doing false hair business and he is also used to go to the place to capture dove in the well. On 16.12.2005 at about 9.00 a.m., when P.W. 1 was in his house, P.W. 9/Chellamuthu gounder came there and told that Maniyakarar has called him. When he has gone along with P.W. 9, P.W. 9 has left him after reaching some distance. The accused, who is the son of Maniyakarar came there and they went to kaatu salai, at that time, the accused fisted on his chest and due to the said impact, P.W. 1 fell down unconscious. He regained conscious after half an hour and told to Maniyakarar that he did not commit any wrong and as to why they have beaten him. Maniyakarar told that P.W. 1 committed theft by placing some person. P.W. 1 told that he along with his son -in -law came for capturing dove in the garden next to accused house and since no dove was there, they went to their house. Then Maniyakar and his son had taken P.W. 1 to Chavadi and had beaten him in the presence of the villagers, but they could not come forward to help him and they are only watching. P.W. 1 was kept in the Chavadi from 11.00 a.m. to 7.00 p.m. Thereafter, P.W. 1's wife Panchavarnam/P.W. 2, Son -in -law Murugan/P.W. 6, Dhandapani/P.W. 7 and Ravi/P.W. 8 came there and took P.W. 1 to Udumalpet Government Hospital at 10.00 p.m. He was admitted in the hospital as an inpatient and on the next day, he gave Ex. P1 complaint.

(iii) P.W. 3/Dr. Tamilmani, Udumalpet Government Hospital, treated P.W. 1 and gave EX. P2/wound certificate, in which, it is stated as follows:

(i) A contusion of 4 X 3 c.m. on right side of the chest.

(ii) Nail marks over right side of the chest.

He opined that the injuries sustained by P.W. 1 are simple in nature.

(iv) On 17.12.2005 at about 7.00 a.m., P.W. 12/Vijayan, Sub -Inspector of Police, went to Udumalpet Government Hospital and recorded Ex. P1 complaint given by P.W. 1. He registered a case in Crime No. 249 of 2005 under Sections 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sections 341 and 323 IPC and prepared Ex. P7 F.I.R.

(v) On 17.12.2005, P.W. 13/Gopal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, took up the case for investigation and went to the place of occurrence and prepared Ex. P8 observation mahazar and drew rough sketch Ex. P9. He took steps to obtain the community certificates of the accused and P.W. 1.

(vi) On the requisition made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P.W. 4/Pandiarajan, Deputy Tahsildar and P.W. 5/Sundarraj, Tahsildar, gave Exs. P3 and P4/community certificates of the accused and P.W. 1 respectively.

(vii) Then P.W. 13 examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. On 05.03.2006, P.W. 13 after completing investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused.

The Trial Court placed the incriminating evidence before the accused under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. and the accused denied the same in toto. On the side of the defence, Ex. D1 was marked. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. Aggrieved over the same, appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

(3.)CHALLENGING the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellant/accused has raised the following points for consideration:
(i) No independent witness was examined. P.W. 7 to P.W. 11 turned hostile.

(ii) Ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST Act and Section 341 IPC have not been made out.

(iii) There is contradiction between ocular and medical evidence.

The trial Court without considering the above aspects erroneously convicted the appellant/accused and hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal.