Conviction under SC/ST Act requires proof of complainant's caste; absence of such proof invalidates conviction under that Act.

1. Present appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 21-3-1997 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 421/1996 convicting the accused / appellant under S.3(1)(xi) of the SC / ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 19-9-1996, at 11.50 p.m. FIR (Ex. P - 1) was lodged by the prosecutrix (PW - 1) a minor girl aged about 15 years alleging that an hour before thereto i.e. at about 10.00 p.m. when she was returning along with her grandmother Fultori Bai, after watching television, on the way accused / appellant came from behind and pressed her breast and when she protested, people who were accompanying her abused him whereupon he ran away from the spot. Based on this FIR offence under S.354, IPC and S. 3(1)(xi) of the Act was registered against the accused / appellant. After investigation, challan was filed on 2-11-1996 against the accused / appellant.

3. In order to establish the guilt of the accused / appellant, prosecution has examined 5 witnesses. Statement of the accused / appellant was also recorded under S.313 of the Cr. P. C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. This apart two defence witnesses have also been examined.

4. After hearing counsel for the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

5. Contention of Shri Kochar, counsel for the appellant is that the prosecution has not filed or proved any document in relation to the caste of the complainant and filing and proving of caste certificate or any such document is sine qua non for bringing home the offence under the provisions of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act therefore the appellant cannot be convicted for the offence under the said Act. He further submits that taking the entire case of prosecution as it is, at best, the accused / appellant can be convicted under S.354, IPC and as under the S.354, IPC, jail sentence is not mandatory he be set free after imposing fine amount. It has been further argued that the appellant can be granted the benefit of probation of offenders Act.

6. On the other hand counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment, however, he admits that prosecution has not filed any document showing the caste of the complainant.

7. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. Prosecutrix (PW - 1) aged about 14 years, in his statement has stated that she belongs to Satnami caste and is illiterate. She has stated that she was residing with her grand - mother Fultori Bai and she does not know the accused / appellant. According to her, on the date of incident she had gone to watch video in the house of Sarpanch and when she was returning along with her grand mother, accused / appellant came from behind and pressed her breast on which she raised cries and then the children who were also accompanying her abused the accused / appellant. Thereafter Rameshar came running and the appellant fled away from the spot. She has stated that she came to the village and after narrating the elders about the incident, she lodged the report in police station. In cross - examination she remained very firm and nothing could be elicited from her. Rameshar (PW - 2) while supporting the statement of the prosecutrix has stated that when he along with other villagers was returning from the house of Sarpanch he saw the accused / appell