Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14-5-1999 passed by Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), Raipur in Special Session Case No. 58/97 whereby and whereunder the Special Judge after holding the appellants guilty for forcing or causing a member of Scheduled Tribe to leave his house, village or other place of residence, convicted them under S. 3(1)(xv) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo R.I. for 10 days to each appellants. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned thereby committed illegality.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, on 14-4-1997 complainant Singhraj Singh (PW-7) lodged First Information Report (Ex. P/4) against the appellants and one another accused person that on 20-10-1996 the complainant and other members of his community i.e. Scheduled Tribes have conducted pooja in honour of kurupat ishta devata and they invited other villagers also to attend the Pooja. On 29-10-1996 Gajpal Singh Noor Pal Singh, Chandrabhan Singh along with the complainant served with a notice and were directed to appear in the meeting of villagers on 30-10-96. When the complainant and other villagers joined in the meeting they were asked as to why they offered pooja to kurupat ishta devata without asking to other villagers. In the meeting they were fined a penalty of Rs. 2000/- and asked them to pay it immediately otherwise they had to pay a fine of Rs. 6000/- and they will be outcasted from the village. When the complainant and other witnesses protested for the same and denied for the payment of alleged fine, the appellants along with other co-accused-Reetu Shankar threatened them for marpeet and extortion of deposit of the fine. On account of fear, the villagers stopped talking to the complainant and his relatives and they were facing inconvenience as the villagers were not making any relation or contact with them. When their grievances were not redressed, the complainant reached to the Police Station Kasdol and lodged First Information Report (Ex-P/4). The police registered crime No. 52/97 and registered the offence under Ss.384/34 of the I.P.C. against the appellants and one another co-accused against whom a case was separately filed before the Court at Baloda Bazar. Investigating Officer after registering crime started investigation. Asst. Sub-Inspector PR Dewangan (P.W. 11) prepared spot map (Ex-P/1) and also seized notes (Ex-P/3) of the meeting vide Ex-P/2. He also recorded statement of the witnesses under S. 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code')- First Information Report was recorded by SHO Prithvi Dubey. PK Singh SDO (P) (PW-10) performed the post part of the investigation. He recorded the statement of Laharam Bhijhawar. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before Special Judge/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, under the Act.

3. The learned trial Court framed the charges against the appellants for the offence under S. 3(1)(xv) of the Act. The charge-sheet was filed under Ss. 384/34 of the IPC and under S. 3(1)(xv) of the Act. Against framing of charges only under S. 3(1)(xv) of the Act and by not framing any charge under Ss. 384/34 of the I.P.C, the State has not challenged framing of the charges before the higher forum. With this, framing of charges only under S. 3(1)(xv) of the Act attains finality.

4. The prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellants before the trial Court. Statements of the appellants were also recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code, wherein they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication