public place or near the public place. Again from the statement of complainant Dhanbai (PW-1) it is not established that the offence committed on the basis of caste. Sher herself admitted that she used abusive language against someone who gave poison to her hen and the same is not an incident based on the caste. In totality of the fact, it cannot be said that the offence committed by the appellant was on the basis of caste. Again, the word uttered by the accused/appellant in the house of the complainant and the same is not a public place or a place of public view, the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Special Act and section 294 of the IPC can be established only when offence is committed in public place. In the present case, it is admitted that offence is not committed in any public place or nearby public place, therefore, offence as mentioned above is not established against the appellant. It is established from the evidence that the accused/appellant assaulted Dhanbai (PW-1), Amrika Bai(PW-2) and Giteshwar (PW-3) and the injuries sustained by them were simple in nature, case of the accused/appellant does not fall under any exception as mentioned between section 76 to 106 of the IPC and it was within the knowledge of the accused/appellant that his assault will give pain to the persons concerned. The accused/appellant caused simple injuries to the persons concerned as mentioned and the same is offence under Section 323 of the IPC for which the trial Court convicted the accused/appellant and the same is not liable to be interfered by this Court and hereby affirmed.
