Conviction under SC/ST Act requires evidence of intent related to caste, which was lacking; guilty of IPC Section 354 for outraging modesty.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 26-2-1996 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 137/1996 convicting the accused / appellant for the offences punishable under S.3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 506 Part - II of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months u/S. 3(1)(xi) of the SC / ST Act, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months u/S. 506 part - II, IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15-11-1993 at about 6 p.m. F. I. R. (Ex. P - 1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW - 1), a married lady aged about 26 years alleging in it that on 14-11-1993 at about 7.00 p.m. when she had gone to her newly constructed house along with her servant Kumar Singh (PW - 2), the accused / appellant reached there, caught hold of her hand and tried to pull her by saying that he would do the bad work with her and when she cried for help her servant who was in the other room, came there and upon his intervention, accused / appellant left her by giving a threat not to disclose the incident to anyone. After investigation challan was filed on 29-12-1993 under S.354 and S.506 of the Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act .

3. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses. Statement of the accused / appellant was also recorded under S.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case.

4. After hearing the parties the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant for the offences as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

5. Counsel for the appellant submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the alleged act has been committed by the accused / appellant knowing fully well that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Caste community. He submits that unless this evidence is brought on record, the appellant cannot be convicted under S.3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act . He further submits that there is no evidence on record to show that the alleged act was done by the appellant with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.

6. On the other hand supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel that conviction of the accused / appellant is in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in the same. She submits that in F. I. R. the prosecutrix has categorically stated as to for what purpose accused / appellant caught hold of her and if in the Court statement, this fact has not been stated by her, it will not make any difference. She has further argued that prosecution is not required to prove that the alleged act has been committed by the accused / appellant knowing fully well that the prosecutrix belonged to Scheduled Caste community.

7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including judgment impugned.

8. Prosecutrix (PW - 1) has stated in her evidence that she belongs to 'Gada' caste which comes under the category of Scheduled Caste community. She knows the accused / appellant as he belongs to her village and by caste he is Vaishnav. She has further stated that on the date of incident i.e. on Diwali festival s