1. The appellants have preferred this appeal against the judgment and conviction dated 12.1.1996 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Shahdol in Special Case No.36 of 1994 whereby the appellant Munna Singh was convicted for offence punishable under section 354 of IPC and senction 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter it is referred as the “Special Act”) and sentenced for six months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.200/-. The appellant Munna Singh has also to undergo additional sentence for one month’s rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of fine whereas, the appellant Bhaiyalal was convicted for offence punishable under section 323 of IPC and sentenced for six month’s rigorous imprisonment.

2. Prosecution’s case in short is that on 14.1.1994 at about 4:00 p.m. in the evening the prosecutrix (PW1) came to her house situated in the outskirts of village Mauhari, Police Station Bijuri, District Shahdol from her field. After some time the appellants came to her house and asked about her husband. Thereafter, the appellant Munna Singh held the right hand of the victim and tried to pull her in the house. He also touched her breasts. The prosecutrix made hue and cry and therefore, her husband Farzul (PW2) and witness Shivram (PW3) came to the spot. Appellant Bhaiyalal who had a stick at that time with him assaulted the husband of the prosecutrix on his head and various parts of the body and thereafter, both of the appellants ran towards the village. The prosecutrix told about the incident to her parents-in-law and thereafter, she went to the Police Station Bijuri, District Shahdol with her husband. FIR was lodged on the same very day at about 8:30 p.m. In Police Station Bijuri a case was registered against the appellants. Victim Farzul was sent to the hospital for his examination and treatment. Dr. Gautam (PW6) found six simple injuries to the victim Farzul on his person. After due investigation charge-sheet was submitted before the Special Court.

3. The appellants abjured their guilt. They did not take any specific plea in the case. However, it was alleged that the appellants were falsely implicated due to previous enmity. In support of their defence Phoolbai (DW1), Ashok Kumar (DW2) were examined. After considering the evidence adduced by the parties learned Special Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned above.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that a false case was registered against the appellants. They were falsely implicated due to enmity. A separate quarrel took place with Farzul and other persons in which Farzul sustained the injuries. Thereafter, a false case was lodged related to section 354 of IPC etc. It is also submitted that the defence witnesses were reliable but, learned Special Judge did not believe the defence witnesses. It is further submitted that the prosecutrix was not of Scheduled Tribe and therefore no offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act is made out. Learned counsel for the appellant has also placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by this Court in case of Shankarlal v. State of M.P. [2005(1) MPLJ 449], to show that there was no intention of the appellant Munna Singh to outrage the modesty of the prosecutrix because she was of the Scheduled Tribe and therefore, no offence under section 3(1)(xi) of the Special Act is made out. It is also submitted that case is very much old. The appellants are suffering from the trial and the appeal since the year 1994 and therefore, their sentence may be reduced to the period which they have already undergone in custody.

6. On the other hand learned Panel Lawyer has submitted that conviction and sentence passed by the Special Court are correct and appropriate. Learned Panel Lawyer placed his reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble apex Court in the case of Vidyadharan