Ashok Kumar Tiwari, J.

( 1. ) Appellant herein stands convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) read with Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code vide judgment passed by 4th Special Judge, Ujjain in Special Sessions Trial No. 27/97 on 26-5-1998.

( 2. ) Briefly stated, the prosecutions case is that the prosecutrix (PW 1) is a Chamar by caste and belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. Appellant is Anjana by caste and he is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. On the date of incident, prosecutrix (PW 1) had gone to field of Kacharulal to cut his crop of JUWAR and in the evening at about 5.00 p.m.; she was returning from there to her village, then near the temple of GANPATI, appellant arrived there and he caught hold of her hand and he tried to drag her towards the temple. On hearing cries raised by the prsoecutrix (PW 1), Dhapubai (PW 3) and one woman reached on the spot. Then appellant fled away from the spot. Prosecutrix (PW 1) first went to house of Dhapubai with her and from there she went to her house. When her husband (PW 2) returned in the night from the field, she told him about the incident. Due to night time, her husband (PW 2) did not go to police station. He went to police station Jharda on the next day and made report Ex. P/3 there. Police conducted the required investigation and filed charge sheet against the accused appellant.

( 3. ) Learned trial Court framed the charges under Sections 354 and 506 of Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. Appellant abjured his guilt. Therefore, he was put to trial. After trial he was convicted under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 read with Section 354 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-; in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. He was also convicted under Section 506 of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 500.00; in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. Hence, he has filed this appeal.

( 4. ) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that offence puni-shable under Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Act is not made out and on the basis of the prosecution evidence, appellant could have been convicted under Section 354 of IPC at the most. The contention of the learned counsel deserves to be accepted, as prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients required for constituting the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act.

( 5. ) In order to establish the charge under the aforesaid section, it is essential to prove that the prosecutrix belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and criminal force was used on her by a person who is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community. In the present case, the prosecution has not led any evidence to the effect that the caste, to which the prosecutrix belongs, is included in the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the accused appellant has admitted in his examination under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that prosecutrix is Chamar by caste. He has not challenged the caste of the prosecutrix. Therefore, prosecution was not obliged to lead any evidence regarding the fact whether the prosecutrix belonged to SC or ST community or not.

( 6. ) In the testimony of prosecutrix (PW 1), it is said that she is Chamar by caste and the appellant has admitted this fact. She has not said that she is a member of SC or ST or whether her caste is included in the list of SC caste. Her husband (PW 2) has deposed that he is a Suryawanshi Chamar by caste. The prosecution has not led any evidence to the e