1. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 2.7.1996 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in Special Case No. 63/1995, convicting them under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter for short 'the Act') and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count respectively.

2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 28.11.1995 at about 8 a.m., when complainant Pyarelal was going on the public way, appellants confronted and after abusing him assaulted by fists, kicks and lathis. As a result of which, he suffered injuries. It is also said that they called him 'Chamra' with a view to intentionally insult and humiliate him because of his being a member of Scheduled Caste.

3. Pyarelal (PW 1) lodged a report Ex. P/l at police Station AJK, Jabalpur. Police registered a case against the appellants under sections 341,294, 506-B and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Investigating Officer sent Pyarelal for medical examination to Victoriya Hospital, Jabalpur. Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW 3) and Dr. A.K. Agrawal, (PW 4) examined him and found simple injury on his left eye.

4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special court for trial.

5. Appellants pleaded false implication. As appeared from the suggestions put by the appellants in the cross examination of prosecution witnessess, it appears that they were implicated because of a quarrel on non-payment of money advanced by them to complainant Pyarelal.

6. during trial prosecution examined Pyarelal (PW 1), Baliram (PW 2) and Chetram (PW 5) as eye witnesses of the occurrance. Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW 3) and Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW 4) were examined to prove injury found on the body of complainant. L.P. Mishra (PW 6), Station Officer of AJK. Police Station proved the investigation. Appellants also examined Sharda Prasad (DW 1) and Mohan (DW 2) in their defence.

7. Learned Special Judge, upon trial after appreciation of the evidence held the appellants guilty for the charge under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence of complainant and other eye witnesses, it is not established that appellants assaulted the complainant with a view to humiliate or insult him with intent to because of his being a member of Scheduled Caste. Complainant himself admitted that he was generally called as 'Chamar' because he belonged to that caste. Counsel further submitted that the injury found on the body of complainant could have been caused by a fall. According to him, appellants were falsely implicated because they did not want to return the money borrowed by them for treatment of their mother. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was trustworthy and the finding of conviction of appellants recorded by the trial Court was fully justified.

9. I have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record.

10. Complainant Pyarelal (PW 1) deposed that while he was returning after answering the call of nature, appellant Rammu caught hold of him and Barelal and Vishnu dealt lathi blows to him, due to which, he fell down. Thereafter, all of them assaulted him and hurled abuses. They also extended threats to kill him saying 'Chamar Tere Ko Mar Dalenge'. He went to police station and lodged the report Ex. P/1. The incident was witnessed by Bali, Chetram and some other persons.

11. In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he borrowed money from the appellant Rammu for treatment of fracture of the leg of his mother. However, from the evidence, it appears that there was some dispute of account with respect to transaction of money between him and the appellants. According to him, the diary of account which was kept b