( 1 ) THE appeal is directed against the judgment in Special Sessions case No. 10/1998 on the file of the Special judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act-cum-Additional district Judge, Adilabad convicting the accused for an offence under section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, the S. C. and S. T. Act ) read with Section 354 of the indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Questioning the legality and correctness of the conviction and senlence recorded by the Court below, the accused filed the present appeal.

( 2 ) THE brief facts that are necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that, on 3. 4. 1998 at about 3. 00 p. m. , a sweeper by name Eppa Durgamma went inside the municipal Office, Kagaznagar, along with another sweeper P. W. 2, that while returning after drinking water the accused caught hold of the hand of Durgamma - P. W. 1 with an intention to outrage her modesty and abused her in vulgar language, that on a report given by her, the Kagaznagar police registered a case in Crime No. 50/1998 under section 3 (1) (xi) of the S. C. and S. T. Act read with Section 354 IPC.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the Prosecution, p. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined and Exs. Pl and p2 were marked. On behalf of the accused, d. Ws. 1 and 2 were examined.

( 4 ) THE lower Court, after hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the Prosecution proved the guilt of the accused for the offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the S. C. and S. T. Act read with Section 354, and therefore convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid.

( 5 ) NOW the point for determination is whether the judgment of the lower Court is correct, legal and proper?

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant contended that the interested testimony of p. Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be taken into consideration, that the ingredients of the offences alleged against the accused are not made out, and that the investigation was conducted by the Officer below the rank of deputy Superintendent of Police and therefore the trial is vitiated. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor contended that the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is very clear that the accused outraged the modesty of P. W. 1, that there is no reason for P. W. 1 to foist a false case against the accused, and that the well-reasoned order of the Court below cannot be disturbed. Therefore, he prays to dismiss the appeal.

( 7 ) THE specific case of the Prosecution is that while P. Ws. 1 and 2 were returning from the Municipal office after drinking water, the accused caught hold of the hand of P. W. 1 and stated "rave Munda", and that thereafter P. W. I raised cries and on hearing her cries the Municipal workers caught hold of the accused and took him to the police station and presented the report.

( 8 ) THE substantive charge for which the accused was convicted is under section 3 (1) (xi) of the S. C. and. S. T. Act, which reads as follows:"section 3 (1) - Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, (xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years and with fine. "

( 9 ) IT is to be seen whether the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 inspires confidence. Admittedly, the Kagaznagar police station was abutting the Municipal office, so also the quarter of the Sub-Inspector of Police of Kagaznagar Police Station. It is an admitted fact that several persons visit the municipal office for payment of tax etc. None of the persons present there at the time of the incident was examined on behalf of the Prosec