The court clarified the requirements for conviction under the SCST Act versus IPC Section 354, emphasizing necessary evidence of intent tied to caste status for SCST convictions.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15-10-1999 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 in Special Sessions Case No. 12/1999 whereby and whereunder learned Special Judge after holding the appellant guilty for intentionally insulting with an intention to humiliate a member of scheduled castes in a public view to outrage the modesty and also for using criminal force, convicted the appellant under S.3 (1)(xi) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (In brevity 'SCST Act') and sentenced him to undergo RI for 6 months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional RI for 10 days with a further direction that the period of detention i.e. from 3-2-1999 till 5-2-1999 (3 days) shall be set off under the provisions of S.428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.

2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, learned Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. As per the case of the prosecution, on 1-2-1999 at about 10.00 am when prosecutrix P.W. 1 (Name not mentioned) went to collect firewood, the accused / appellant came and forcibly caught hold her, pushed her in the field, attempted for bad act. She resisted and anyhow escaped from the clutches of the accused / appellant, rushed to the house and informed about the incident to her mother and other family members. On the same day, she along with family members went to Police Station Baloda Bazar where she gave a written report Ex. P - 1. On the basis of said report, Baloda Bazar Police registered the Crime No. 20/1999 against the accused / appellant under S.354 of the IPC and S.3(1) (xi) of the SCSI Act, registered the FIR as Ex. P - 2. The matter was duly investigated by the S.D.O. Police who prepared spot map Ex. P - 3, also collected the caste certificate Ex, P - 4, recorded the statement of the witnesses under S.161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed charge sheet before the Special Judge under SCST Act. The trial Court framed charges under S.3(1)(xi), SCST Act read with S.354 of the IPC.

4. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. Statement of the appellant was recorded under S.313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question.

5. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court acquitted the accused / appellant of the charge framed under S.354 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant under S.3(1 )(xi) of the SCST Act which includes ingredients of S.354, IPC.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that prosecution failed to prove its case against the accused / appellant without reasonable and probable doubt. Statement of P.W. 1 prosecutrix does not inspire confidence. Accused / appellant was falsely implicated. Hence the Court may acquit the accused / appellant by affording him benefit of doubt. In alternate learned counsel submits that if the arguments advanced regarding acquittal of the accused appellant affording him benefit of doubt is not accepted by the Court then as the accused / appellant was first offender, incident is about more than 17 years