1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.8.2002 passed by learned Special Judge, Guna in Specia1 Case No.201/2001 convicting appellant under section 354, IPC as well as under section 3(1)(xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short "the Act") and thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment, appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

2. In brief, the case of prosecution is that on the date of incident prosecutrix along with her Nanad (sister-in-law) went to evacuate in the field where appellant also arrived and by catching the hand asked her to accompany him to Jhore (a place in the field). It is said that when prosecutrix snatched her hand, appellant grappled and pressed her breast It is also stated that when prosecutrix screamed, appellant fled from the place of occurrence and he was seen running away by Sukhlal. Prosecutrix after arriving at her home narrated the incident to her husband, but on account of non-availability of the conveyance they could not go to police station to lodge the report.

3. It is the further case of prosecution that on the next day at 12:00 in the noon when appellant was going away in front of the house of prosecutrix, she identified him and told her husband that appellant is the person who outraged her modesty yesterday. The husband of the prosecutrix Bhagwanlal inquired from appellant that why he outraged the modesty of his wife, on this, it is said that appellant pelted Gumme (pieces of brick). It is also said that Bhagwanlal was thrown on the ground and one Ghasilal intervened. On being asked the name, appellant told his name to be Manish Kumar.

4. First information report was lodged by prosecutrix on the next day of the incident i.e. 9.7.2001 at 14:00 hrs. On the basis of the first information report, a case under sections 354, 324, IPC as well as under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act was registered against appellant.

5. The investigating agency after investigation, submitted a charge-sheet before learned Special Judge who framed charges punishable under section 354, IPC and in the alternative under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. The appellant was further charged for the offence punishable under section 323, IPC. Needless to emphasis, appellant abjured his guilt and requested for trial.

6. Learned Special Judge, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, came to hold that the charge under section 323, IPC is not proved and, eventually, acquitted appellant from this charge. However, according to learned Special Judge, charges under section 354, IPC as well as under section 3(1)(xi) of the Act are found to be proved, eventually, appellant has been convicted for the said offences and has been directed to suffer imprisonment as directed in the impugned judgment.

7. In this manner, present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing his judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

8. Shri R.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for appellant, has submitted that looking to the evidence of the prosecutrix, it is difficult to hold that appellant has committed the offence for which he was charged. Further it has been argued by him that the incident is said to have taken place on 8.7.2001 at 18:30 hrs. but the FIR was lodged on next day 9.7.2001 at 14:00 hrs. and no reasonable explanation for delay has been given by prosecutrix in her testimony. It has also been put forth by learned counsel that learned trial Court has not given due weightage to the defence which has been set forth by appellant that in order to run the grocery business, the husband of the prosecutrix took an amount of Rs.500/- from appellant and when appellant asked to return the loan amount, the husband of the prosecutrix scolded on him and said that a false case under the Atrocities Act will be lodged against him.

9. On the other hand, Shri D.S. Cho