The prosecution must prove the necessary ingredients of the offences under Section 3 of the SC/ST Act and Section 354 IPC in order to secure a conviction.

Sandeep Mehta, J.

By way of the instant appeal, the appellant herein has approached this Court assailing the judgment dated 28.3.1995 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 165/1994, convicting and sentencing the appellant as below:-

(i) Offence under Section 354 I.P.C. read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act: 6 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo 15 days simple imprisonment.

2. Shri Pankaj Gupta appearing on behalf of Shri M.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the Trial Court for the above offences is totally illegal and unjustified. He urged that the first informant Kalu Ram, husband of the victim Mst. Brahma Devi was working as a labour in the field of appellant's cousin brothers Kishan Lal and Subhash Chand. The appellant and Kishan Lal & Subhash Chand were having long standing dispute going on over property. Thus, they managed to get a false criminal case foisted on the appellant in order to wreak vengeance. He urged that neither in the F.I.R. nor in the sworn testimony of Brahma Devi, any such allegation was levelled that the offending act was perpetrated with the intention of committing such offence on a person belonging to Schedule Caste. Thus, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under the SC/ST Act is totally unjustified. He further contended that the highest allegation of Brahma Devi, in her statement, is that the appellant came to the field of Phusaram where she was working, caught hold of her hand and tried to drag her away. Merely on the basis of such allegations, the necessary ingredients of the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. cannot be said to be made out. He thus urged that the conviction of the appellant is totally illegal aft contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and should be set aside.

3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed submissions advanced by the appellant's Counsel and urged that the learn Trial Court has, after due appreciation of material available on record, reached to a finding of guilt against the petitioner. The findings of the Trial Court cam be said to be a perverse or contrary to the evidence so as to call for interference. He thus urged that the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the material available on record.

5. it is not in dispute that the husband of Brahma Devi, namely Kaluram was working in the field of Kishan Lal (PW-3) and Subhash Chand (PW-4) who are the cousin brothers of the appellant herein. Subhash Chand, in his evidence, admitted that property disputes were going on between his family and family of the accused in various Courts. Thus, the possibility of Brahma devi having been used as a tool by Kishan Lal and Subhash Chand in order town act vengeance upon the appellant, cannot be ruled out. Brahma Devi, in her sworn testimony, alleged that she was cutting grass in the field of Phusaram. Atma Ram, the appellant herein came there, caught hold of her hand and tried tot her in the mustered crops. She shouted on which, the accused allegedly threatened her that she would not be allow to live in the village. On hearing her shout, Kishanlal and Subhash Chand came there and saved her. She further alleged that Subhash Chand and Kishanlal accompanied her husband to the Police Station for lodging the report. In cross-examination, she was confronted with her previous statement (Ex.D-1). in the said statement, there was no allegation that the accused tried to drag the prosecutrix after catching hold of her hand. The presence of the witnesses Subhash Chand and Kishanlal at the time of the incident is not shown in the said statement. It is evident from the highest case set up by the victim