JUDGMENT :

Farjand Ali, J.

The appellant has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374 of the CrPC being aggrieved of the judgment dated 18.08.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Court, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.52/1994, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under :-

2. Briefly stated, facts relevant and essential for disposal of the case are that on 28.03.1994 complainant Peeraram, resident of Narwa, submitted a written report at the Police Station Soorsagar to the effect that in the morning of that day, his wife came to Police Line, where he was serving as a Sipahi. She told that on the previous night at about 10-11 p.m. Shambhu Singh and Mahendra Singh came to their house in intoxicated condition; hurled caste related abuses and pelted stones on their house, which were still present at the spot. It was also stated in the complaint that previously also on 21.03.1994, the accused committed similar act and on the next day, their relatives apologized for their act. Now they have repeated the same act. Roop Singh also witnessed the incident.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid report FIR No.60/1994 was registered and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet came to be submitted against the present appellant and one Mahendra Singh for the offences under Sections 336 , 504 IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act in the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.3, Jodhpur, from where the case was committed and transferred to the trial court.

4. The learned trial court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under sections 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 336 of the IPC and upon denial of guilt by the accused, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 6 documents were exhibited. Thereafter, an explanation was sought from the accused-appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied the prosecution allegations and claimed to be falsely implicated in the case due to previous enmity. Two documents were exhibited in defence. Then, after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Defence Counsel and upon meticulous appreciation of the evidence, learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above vide judgment dated 18.08.1994, which is under assail before this court in the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant is not present to argue the case. A perusal of the file reveals that the appeal filed by co-accused Mahendra Singh being S.B. Criminal Appeal No.514/1994 has already been partly allowed by a co-ordinate Bench vide judgment dated 25.05.2022, whereby while maintaining the conviction, the sentence awarded to the accused was reduced to the period already undergone. In view of the above and looking to the fact that the case pertains to the year 1994 and a significant period has already elapsed, this court deemed it fit to decide the appeal based on the material available on record and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor.

6. The grounds raised in the memo of appeal for assailing the impugned judgment are that the alleged eye-witnesses of the incident Smt. Pukhiya Devi (P.W.3), Smt. Bhanwari (P.W.4) and Roop Singh (P.W.5) are interested witnesses and presence of th