This appeal is filed by the accused in Sessions Case 72/1995 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Wayanad. The allegation against the appellant was that he committed the offences under Sections 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is stated that on 9-1-1995 at about 2 p.m. appellant used criminal force by catching hold on the uniform of P.W.2 Gopalan, a public servant with intent to prevent or deter him from the execution of his official duty and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. There was also allegation that the appellant intentionally insulted and humiliated P.W.2 within public view by calling him ‘Kurichian’ and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and sentenced him under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The sentences that could be awarded by the learned Sessions Judge were maximum sentences that could be awarded under the above provisions. Further there was direction that the sentences had to run consecutively. Aggrieved by the order of conviction and sentence this appeal had been filed.

2. P.W.2 gave Exhibit-P3 first information to P.W.6, the Head Constable of Police, Thirunelly Police Station. On the basis of Exhibit-P3 first information Crime 1/1995 was registered in the above police station against the appellant and investigation of the crime was conducted by P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police. P.W.11, the Circle Inspector of Police verified the records of investigation and filed final report in Court.

3. The trial Court mainly relied on the evidence of P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.7 to come to the conclusion that the appellant committed the offences punishable under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In respect of the finding that the appellant committed the offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code the learned Sessions Judge said that when the appellant caught hold of the uniform of P.W.2 and humiliated him by mentioning his caste he was on official duty. The learned Sessions Judge says that a forest guard who is going from his quarters in uniform has to be considered to be on duty. The evidence of P.W.2 was that the occurrence took place near the Forest Check Post, Tholpetty and that he reached near the Check Post when he was going to do his official duty. His version is that he was going to do his official duty. His version is that he was going from his quarters to the place where he had to discharge his duties as a public servant. The version of P.W.2 is that when he reached the Check Post the appellant was sitting near the check post and on seeing him the appellant went near him and caught hold of his uniform and insulted him by mentioning his caste. P.W.4 was a forester on duty in the Check Post and he was examined to prove the occurrence. His version is also that at a place near the Check Post appellant caught hold of the uniform of P.W.2 and humiliated him by mentioning his caste. Version of P.W.7 is that he was going along with P.W.2 and he was also on uniform. This witness was working as a Forest Guard in Wildlife Range, Tholpetty at the time when the occurrence took place. This witness also said that when they reached near the Check Post the appellant was there and be caught hold of the uniform of P.W.2 and humiliated him by mentioning his caste.

4. P.W.2 and P.W.7 said that they were supervising th