1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-12-2004 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Jashpur, in Special Criminal Case No. 26 of 2003, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted under Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.l 000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 1½ months.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Shanti Bai (PW/2) is a member of Satnami, Scheduled Caste. Sudharshan (PW/4) is husband of Shanti Bai (PW/2) and Balichand (PW/3) is their son. On 18-5-2001 Sudharshan (PW/4) was going to the shop of appellant Mohan for purchasing household goods and when he reached the shop of appellant, appellant told his servants to push him in Mahuva godown, kill him by cutting pieces and throw him in a forest by keeping in a Mahuva bag. Accused/appellant also abused Sudharshan by caste. When Sudharshan did not turn up from the shop of the appellant, then his wife Shanti Bai (PW/2) along with her son namely Balichand (PW/3) went to the shop of appellant and enquired about her husband. At that time, appellant was not present in his shop, but his servants informed her about the incident. She came back to her house and on the next day she again went to the shop of the appellant and asked the appellant about her husband saying that the servants of the appellant informed her that appellant had tried to get detained her husband in godown and requested him to release her husband, then appellant abused her saying "HkkslM+h] pejhu" and pushed her as a result of which she fell down, then her son Balichand (PW/3) woke up her mother. Accused appellant also told her that go and know about your husband in Panchayat.

3. Complainant Shanti Bai (PW/2) along with her son Balichand (PW/3) went to Police Station Bagbahar, Dist. Jashpur and lodged first information vide Ex.P/1 on the basis of which offence was registered against the appellant. During the course of investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/4, accused was arrested vide Ex.P/5.

4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, in turn committed the case to the court of Sessions from where a case was received on transfer for trial by Special Judge who framed charge punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. The accused abjured the guilt and pleaded his innocence and false implication. The learned Special Judge after due trial convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence in its proper legal perspective. The conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Special Judge are contrary to the facts available on record. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(i)(x) of the Act. There is no material on record to establish that the appellant did the act with a view to humiliate the complainant. The Special Judge committed a grave error in not considering the fact that no documentary evidence regarding the caste of the complainant has been produced. Learned counsel further submits that the conclusions arrived at by the special Court are based on presumptions and surmises, therefore, the impugned conviction and sentence passed against the appellants is bad in law and the same deserves to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decisions of CG High Court in the case of Chhedilal Vs. State of M.P. (Now CG) 2012(2) CGLJ 6, Mafidar Vs. State of MP. (Now CG) 2011 (2) CGLJ 212, Horilal and another Vs. State of MP 2011(4) CGLJ 51, Sharad Kachhi