Goverdhan Bardhar, J.

This criminal appal has been filed against the judgment dated 15.03.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Churu (for short "the trial court") in Criminal Case No. 15/92 whereby, he convicted the appellant under Section 341, 323 IPC, Section 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act and sentenced him as under :-

Offence Sentence awarded by the trial court

U/s 341 IPC To undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/- in default of fine to further undergone 15 days rigorous imprisonment

U/s 323 IPC To undergo one months' rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.200/- in default of fine to further undergone 15 days rigorous imprisonment.

US/3(i)(x) SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act To undergo six months rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 22.05.1992 by complainant Asu Ram stating therein that on 21.05.1992 famine camp was going on in village Duliasar. It is stated that he went along with Patwari Shyam Sunder to police station and after seeing off patwari, when he returned towards his house, appellant who was standing near the well stopped him and gave blows on left ribs and abused him. It is alleged that the complainant shouted and people came and rescued him.

3. Upon the said information, a case was registered against the appellant for offence under Section 341, 323 and 3(i)(x) of SC/ST (prevention of atrocities) Act. Thereafter, investigation took place and a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant and case was transferred to the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Cases, Churu for trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant was recorded wherein he denied the allegations and claimed trial. In defence, one witness Pema Ram was examined by the appellant.

5. Upon conclusion of trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment and order convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as indicated above. Aggrieved by the same the appellant has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR has been filed by the complainant with delay because if any such incident had happened on 22.05.92, then the police must have arrived at the place of occurrence and must have recorded statement of witnesses and prepared the site plan, whereas, no such thing is on record and therefore, the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. It is further argued that offence under Section 3(x) of the Act of 1989 is not made out because as per Section 3(x), there must be abusing in open public but as per evidence on record, when the alleged occurrence took place, no person was standing near the well, therefore, the version of the complainant creates serious doubt on the happening of the incident at all and therefore, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is made out. Moroever the witness Koja Ram examined as PW/7 in the trial court who is alleged to have come first upon shouting of complainant, did not support the prosecution story and has been declared hostile. It is further submitted that for the offence under Section 323 IPC for causing simple injuries, even if the conviction is maintained, the sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused appellant in jail.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners therefore, prayed for their acquittal of the aforesaid offences. In the alternative, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to the petitioners be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the