Conviction under special provisions requires definitive evidence of caste status, which was lacking; however, guilt under general statutes was established.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 04/07/1996 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 284/1996 convicting the accused / appellant for the offence punishable under S.3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs.700, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 16/01/1996 at about 11.45 p.m. FIR Ext. P1 was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW 1) a married lady aged about 45 years alleging that on that day at about 8.30 p.m when she was sleeping in her house and that her husband had not returned from his workplace, accused / appellant came there, sat on her bed and pulled out her sari with an intention to outrage her modesty. It is alleged that due to her sari being pulled out by the accused / appellant she had become naked. Thereafter, allegedly she came out of her house in the naked condition and started shouting for help on hearing which her neighbours namely Sukhram (PW 2) and Krishna Bai (PW 3) came there and she covered herself with the lungi given to her by Sukhram (PW 2) and then the report was lodged. Based on this FIR, the offence under S.354 IPC was registered against the accused / appellant and after completion of investigation challan was filed by the Police on 22/03/1996 for the offences under S.354 and 456 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Act. The Court below however framed the charge against the appellant only under S.3(1)(xi) of the Act.

3. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 6 witnesses in support of its case. 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 as mentioned above in paragraph No.1 of this judgment.

5. Counsel for the accused / appellant submits that there is no documentary evidence available on record to show the caste of the prosecutrix and that caste of the prosecutrix has been disputed by the appellant. He further submits that even otherwise, before marriage the prosecutrix was Lohar by caste and merely that she married a person belonging to Gond Community, her social status would not change and she remains Lohar by caste.

6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent / State supports the judgment impugned and submits that conviction of the appellant is strictly in accordance with law. However, she does not dispute that there is no documentary evidence to show the caste of the prosecutrix. She submits that even if the provisions of S.3(1)(xi) of the Act are not attracted to the case in hand, the appellant would very much be convicted under S.354 IPC.

7. Prosecutrix (PW 1) has stated in her evidence that by caste she is Loharin but the caste of her husband Jailal is Gond. She has stated that the appellant is Lohar by caste. Describing the incident it is alleged by the prosecutrix that on the date of incident, the appellant had come to her house, started talking to her with bad intention on which she told him that he being the son of her sister was like her son also. She has further stated that the accused / appellant had I asked her for sexual favour and when she refused for that, he pulled out her clothes as a result of which she had become naked. Thereafter, giving a jolt to him, she came out of he