1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.2.2002 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1989’), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.306 of 2001 convicting and sentencing the Appellant as under:

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code	Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation
Under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989	Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the prosecutrix (PW1) is a member of the Scheduled Tribe and is dumb. On 25.4.2001 at about 6:00 a.m., she had gone to the agricultural field to pick up Mahua flowers. At that time, the Appellant was sitting nearby under a tree. It is alleged that he, with an intent to outrage and humiliate the prosecutrix, caught hold of her breast. She came out of his clutches, ran away from there and came back to her house. She told about the incident to her mother Bhagwati (PW2). A written report (Ex.P1) was submitted by Bhagwati. On the basis of Ex.P1, First Information Report (Ex.P2) was registered. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989. Charges were framed against him under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act of 1989.

3. To rope in the Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. One witness has been examined in his defence.

4. After trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in the first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecutrix (PW1) and her mother Bhagwati (PW2). No cogent evidence is available on record against the Appellant. Even if for the sake of argument it is considered that any such incident had taken place, the act done by the Appellant with the prosecutrix was not with a view that she is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the offence alleged under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 1989 is not made out. He further submitted that the matter was investigated into by Sub-Inspector Santosh Singh (PW5), who is below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police and, therefore, there is violation of Rule 7 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 (henceforth 'the Rules of 1995').

6. On the other hand, Learned Counsel appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence.

7. I have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

8. The prosecutrix (PW1) is dumb. As per her statement recorded by the Trial Court, the Appellant gagged her mouth, caught her breast, also caught her private part and tried to remove her underwear. Thereafter, she ran away, went to her house and told about the incident to her mother.

9. Bhagwati (PW2), mother of the prosecutrix has stated that the prosecutrix had gone to the agricultural field to pick up Mahua. After some time, she returned and fell down. She was weeping. On being asked, she told by hints that the Appellant had met her in the agricultural field and caught her. She has further stated that she called a village meeting