1. This criminal appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 8.8.1994 passed by Special Judge, Balaghat in Special Case No. 31/1992, whereby the appellant has been convicted under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced to R.I. for 6 months with fine of Rs.

200/-, in default of payment of the S.I. for 1-1/2 month.

2. Prosecution case in short is that on 28.2.1992 at about 5:30 p.m. complainant Bharatlal Mahar, Peon in the office of Block Development officer, Khairlanji brought Government dak to the house of Kavindra Nath Thakur, Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Kinhi for delivery. He read the letter and thereafter hurled abuses to BDO and the complainant himself. Thereafter he also assaulted the complainant with fist and kick

blows and gave him shoe beating. Thus he intentionally insulted and threatened to the member of Scheduled Caste. Written report was submitted at outpost Khairlanji where the Crime No. 97/92 under sections 353, 294, 506, 332 of IPC was registered on 18.3.1992 at 9:00 p.m. On the basis of it Crime No. 97/92 was registered at Police Station, Ram Payali. Map was prepared. Letter was seized. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the investigation the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Balaghat who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial.

3. Appellant was charged under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses whereas the appellant did not examine any witness in defence. After appreciating the evidence, trial Court found him guilty under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and sentenced thereto as stated hereinabove in Para No.1 of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case. There is delay in lodging the FIR. No plausible explanation has been given by the prosecution for such delay. The complainant has not sustained any injury. There was no any intention or motive to cause marpeet or abuse him. The victim was not known to the appellant before this incident. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

5. On the contrary, Shri G.P. Singh, learned Dy. G.A. appearing on behalf of respondent-State supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence mainly contending that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant and he has been rightly convicted and sentenced by the trial Court, therefore, it does not call for any interference.

6. The main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial Court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989?

7. Bharatlal Raut (PW 1) has deposed that at the relevant time he was Peon at Block Office, Khairlanji. He carried one enclosed envelope along with the slip to be handed over to the appellant at his house at 5:30 p.m. The appellant read the letter and thereafter hurled abuses to the BDO and to complainant himself. He tore the slip, caused marpeet and threatened him. He returned back to Khairlanji and lodged the report (Ex. P-1).

8. This witness in cross-examination has admitted that he has visited this village for the first time and he was not knowing the appellant from before this incident. Thus