Prosecution must prove both victim's S.C./S.T. status and the accused's non-S.C./S.T. status to sustain a conviction under the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. Behera, J.

This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed against him (Appellant) by the learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Balangir on 29^th April 1995 in G.R. Case No. 71 of 1992 arising out of Tureikela P.S. Case No. 18 of 1992, wherein, he (Appellant) was convicted U/s 3(1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (P.A.) Act, 1989 and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months.

2. The Appellant was the sole accused before the learned Trial Court below in G.R. Case No.71 of 1992.

3. The projected case of the prosecution during trial against the accused was that, on 14.04.1992, at about 11 a.m., while the daughter of the informant, who was reading in class-VI was returning from the school, on her way near Halanbhata, the accused came on a cycle and asked her to sit on his cycle, when she (victim) denied, the accused got down from the cycle and caught hold her hands and dragged her, for which, she (victim) fell down, then the accused rode on her. While she (victim) started running after rising from the ground, the accused again tried to catch her, for which, she (victim) again fell down on the ground, then accused sat on her belly. Therefore, she (victim) raised hullah, for which, the accused fled away from there leaving the victim. Thereafter, the victim came to her house in crying condition and narrated the incident before her mother, as her father was absent from the house. Then, after the return of her father in the evening, she (victim) narrated the incident before her father. So, her father lodged written F.I.R. on dated 18.04.1992 vide Ext.3 before the O.I.C., Tureikela Police Station alleging the aforesaid allegations against the accused.

Basing upon such F.I.R., vide Ext.3, the OIC Tureikela P.S. Sri S.K. Mishra registered Tureikela P.S. Case No.18 of 1992 against the accused and he (O.I.C) himself took up the investigation of the case.

4. During investigation, he (I.O.) examined the informant and victim, visited the spot, prepared the spot map vide Ext.7, examined other witnesses, seized the wearing apparels of the victim through seizure list vide Ext.4 and also seized the school admission register of the victim from her school through seizure list vide Ext.5 and released the same in the zima of the headmaster. Then he (I.O) arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court and sent the victim through requisition for her medical examination. Accordingly, she (victim) was medically examined, but due to the transfer of the I.O. (S.K. Mishra), he handed over the charge of the investigation to his successor Mr. Amulya Kumar Das. Then the next I.O. (Mr. A.K. Das) submitted charge-sheet against the accused under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 after completing the investigation.

Accordingly, the accused was facing trial before the Court of learned Special Judge-cum-Sessions Judge, Balangir in G.R. Case No. 71 of 1992 having been charged under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

5. The plea of the defence was one of complete denial and false implication of the accused.

6. In order to substantiate the aforesaid charge/offence under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused, prosecution had examined altogether 6 (six) witnesses, but whereas in support of the above plea of the defence, the defence had examined only one witness as D.W.1.

7. Out of the six witnesses of the prosecution, P.W.1 was the victim herself, P.W.2 was t