JUDGMENT :

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) IPC has been preferred against the judgment dated 22.05.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases (District and Sessions Judge), Balotra, District Barmer in Sessions Case No. 9/92, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 341 and 352 IPC; for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the accused-appellant was ordered to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further two months rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under Section 352 IPC, he was ordered to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further one month’s simple imprisonment and for the offence under Section 341 IPC, a fine of Rs. 100/- was imposed upon him, in default of payment of which he was to undergo additional one month’s simple imprisonment; all the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits that as per the prosecution story, the alleged incident in question had occurred on 21.11.1991 at about 08:00 p.m. at Burhaan Ka Tala, when complainant-Danaram Meghwal was going from his Well (Bera) towards his house; at that time, accused-appellant Motiram b/c Jat, who was under the state of grave intoxication, came and intercepted the complainant; while asking the complainant as to from where he was coming, the accused-appellant grabbed his neck and slapped him and while doing so, the accused-appellant also abused the complainant, who belonged to the Scheduled Caste community, with caste-based abuses.

2.1 Learned counsel further submits that further, as per the prosecution story, during the course of the alleged incident, upon hearing the cries of the complainant, Asraf, Jugtaram Meghwal came to the rescue of the complanant and save him from further assault, on the part of the accused-appellant.

2.2 Learned counsel also submits that after the aforementioned alleged incident, a report was lodged by the complainant before the Police Station, Sedwa, whereupon a case was registered by the police and the investigation started; thereafter, the accused-appellant was arrested by the police and after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial court against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 323/341 IPC; upon such charges being denied by the accused-appellant, he was made to stand the trial, and the trial accordingly commenced.

2.3 Learned counsel also submits that after conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, as above, vide the impugned judgment dated 22.05.1993; hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

2.4 Learned counsel for the accused-appellant harped upon the delay in lodging the FIR, as the alleged incident took place on 21.11.1991 at about 08:00 p.m. whereas the FIR in connection therewith was lodged on 22.11.1991 at 12:30 p.m. and thus, on that count alone, the version of the complainant is not only an afterthought but also concocted; this is more so when, no sufficient and satisfactory explanation was forthcoming from the side of the complainant before the learned trial court, for such delay in lodging the FIR.

2.5 Learned counsel also submits that in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused-appellant had taken a plea of alibi, on count of the fact that on the date of the alleged incident, he was not at all present at the place of the said incident, as he was attending the engagement ceremony of his niece (elder brother’s daughter) on 20.11.1991 in the village, and stayed thereat upto 22.11.1991; thus, as per learne