IMPORTANT POINT
To convict under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, evidence must show the act was committed with the intention of targeting the victim's caste.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.02.2005 passed by the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act), Bastar Place-Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.300/2004, whereby, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (herein after referred to as the “Act, 1989”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for additional 2 months.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that in the intervening night of 26th and 27th of September, 2004, the appellant allegedly caught hold of the prosecutrix, who belongs to Scheduled Tribes Community, with an intention to outrage her modesty. On the basis of the report lodged by the prosecutrix with the Police Station SC & ST, Jagdalpur, an offence punishable under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act, 1989 was registered and after recording the statements of the prosecution witnesses, a final report was submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur on 05.10.2004, who in turn, committed the matter for its trial before the learned Special Judge (SC & ST Act) Bastar.

3. The trial Court has framed the charge against the appellant with regard to the offence as mentioned herein above and in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses while one was examined by the appellant/accused in his defence.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence led by the prosecution arrived at a conclusion that the appellant is the author of the alleged crime, occurred in the intervening night of 26th and 27th of September, 2004 and, accordingly, he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, 1989 and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above.

5. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Smt. Goverdhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submits that the finding of the trial Court holding the appellant to be the author of the alleged crime is apparently contrary to law. While inviting attention to the statements of the prosecutrix, her father and the statement of one Beduram, viz-a-viz, their case dairy statements, it is submitted that there are lot of discrepancies in their statements, however, without taking note of the same, the trial Court has erred in holding that the alleged offence was committed by the appellant. Further of her contention is that the trial Court even without recording a finding that the alleged offence has been committed by the appellant with an intention to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix that she belongs to the Scheduled Tribe community, has erred in convicting the appellant as such. In support, she placed her reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2000 (3) SCC 557.

7. On the other hand, Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State/Respondent has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial Court.

8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully.

9. According to the prosecutrix (PW-1), the appellant, who was accompanied with 7 persons, came and pressed her mouth and dragged her 15 feet away from her house, when she returned at 3.00 am on 27.09.2004, after seeing the festival organized on the eve of Ganesh Pooja. She states further that while dragging her, he was saying ^^bd ckj eq>s lksus ns^^ and her father came out, when she shouted and, while seeing him, the appellant fled away. Mangru (PW-2), who was the father of the prosecu