JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, Saroornagar. Hyderabad, in C.C. No.33 of 1996, dated 27-2-1998, whereby the appellant/AI was convicted of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for brevity 'the Act') read with Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month. A-2 to A-4 were also convicted of the offence under Section 323, IPC and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief, is that A-I is the son. A-3 is the wife and, A4 is the sister of one Yellaiah. A-2 is the mother of A-3. All the accused and the de facto-complainant, who was examined as P.W.1, are all residents of Peddemul Village. Since P.W.1 has got illegal intimacy with the father of A-1 the accused beat her with hands, legs and stones, on 3-4-1996 at about 8 a.m, when P.W. l was proceeding to purch3se some kirana articles in a shop in the village, and caused injuries on her right hand and they also abused her in filthy language as "OSSI MADGI LANJA MAA ILLU APRINA VU NEE MADGI PUKULA MODDA NEE PUKU DEGUDUNU". Immediately after the incident, based on a report given by P.W.1, the Sub-, Inspector of Police, who was examined as P.W.5, registered a case in Crime No.9 of 1996 for the alleged offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and also Section 324 read with Section 34, IPC. Thereafter, P.W.1 was sent to Government Hospital. Tanduru, for treatment and there, one Dr. Kameswari, Civil Assistant Surgeon, who was examined as P.W.4, treated her and gave a Wound Certificate marked as Ex.P-4. Subsequently, the accused were arrested on 5-4-1996 and were remanded to judicial custody. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by P.W.5.

3. The plea of the appellant/A1 is one of total denial. The prosecution in order to prove its case against the accused examined P.Ws. l to 5 and got marked Exs.P1 to P5. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge, on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, held that the prosecution has proved the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act read with Section 323, IPC against the appellant/A-I and accordingly convicted and sentenced as stated supra. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, A-I preferred this appeal.

4. Heard Sri S. Satyam Reddy, the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

5. The offence alleged against the appellant is one under Section 3(I)(x) of the Act.

For the sake of convenience, the said provision of law is extracted hereunder:

"Section 3(1)(x): Intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view." 6. When once the entire section of law i.e., Section 3 of the Act is looked at, there is any amount of difference from the wording that is used in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act with that of other provisions of law mentioned in Section 3 of the Act. It appears that the intention of the Legislature in drafting Section 3(1)(x) of the Act is that the said insult or intimidation should have happened in any place within the view of the public. Whereas, for the other offences such as outraging the modesty etc., as defined under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, it is not stated that such an offence should have happened within public view. Hence, this Court is of the view that the offence must have happened within the public view to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant, Mr. Sathyam Reddy, has drawn my attention to various judgments of this Court, i.e., (1) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Mu