Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24-7-1999 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the Act, 1989"), Raipur (M.P.) (now C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 162/98 whereby and whereunder the learned Special Judge after holding the appellant guilty for committing house trespass to commit offence (other than theft) punishable with imprisonment and assault to complainant (P.W. 1) (name not mentioned) belonging to Scheduled Tribes with intent to outrage her modesty, convicted him under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the IPC") and Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act, 1989 and sentenced him rigorous imprisonment for 6 months; and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of ` 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 10 years, with a direction to run both the substantive jail sentences concurrently. The learned Special Judge gave the appellant benefit of set off for the period the appellant remained in custody, i.e., 25-12-1998 to 4-1-1999 (11 days) towards the substantive jail sentences awarded to him. The conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence the Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

2. As per the case of prosecution, on 16-12-1998 when the complainant (P.W. 1) was in her house feeding her child about 5.00 to 6.00 p.m. the appellant came and inquired about her husband, when she informed that her husband is not present in the house then after noticing the complainant all alone in the house, the appellant caught hold her hands for the purpose of outrage her modesty. When she protested and called for help, then the appellant left her and ran away from the spot. After return of her husband, she intimated the whole incident to her husband. Next day, the husband met the appellant and quarreled with him. As her child was ailing, the complainant informed police and lodged the First Information Report through her husband on 22-12-1998 before Special Police Station, Raipur. Police registered the Crime No. 31/98 under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act, 1989 against the appellant vide Exh. P-2. Deputy Superintendent of Police during investigation, prepared the spot map and recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Code").

3. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Raipur on 30-12-1998. The Special Judge during the trial framed the charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 451 of the IPC and Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act, 1989 read with Section 354 of the IPC and conducted the trial.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code wherein he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in crime in question.

5. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned and the record of the Court below.

7. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that it is not proved that the complainant (P.W. 1) belongs to Scheduled Tribes as no necessary caste certificate is adduced or seized by the prosecution. Simply by oral submission that she belongs to Kanwar (Gond), it cannot be inferred that she belongs to Scheduled Tribe. On the other hand, if this is held to be correct, even then there is no intention to dishonour or outrage the modesty of a woman who belongs to Scheduled Tribes is appeared in the evidence of the witnesses. As per the statement of the comp