A conviction under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 requires the prosecution to prove the social status of the victim via a competent authority and establish that the offence was committed specifically with the intent to dishonor the victim on the ground of their caste.

NAFR

1. The appellant in this appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2007 passed by the Special Sessions Judge, Atrocities, Ambikapur – Surguja (C.G.), in Special Sessions Case No. 29/2007, whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’), and sentenced as under:

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 24.12.2006, the wife of the appellant told complainant (PW-1), who belonged to Uraon Caste which comes under the category of Scheduled Tribes, that she was going to village Deori and, therefore, requested her to come to her house and prepare food for the appellant. Accordingly, the prosecutrix (PW-1) went to the house of the accused/appellant to cook food. At that time, the accused/appellant told her that the light of the kitchen could be switched off from the bedroom and asked her to go to the bedroom to switch it off. When prosecutrix (PW-1) entered the bedroom of the accused/appellant, the accused/appellant caught hold of her hand and, with the intention of outraging her modesty, attempted to push her towards the bed, however, the prosecutrix (PW-1) managed to free her hand and returned to her house, where she shut the door from inside. Thereafter, the accused/appellant came and started banging on the door of her house from outside. Thereafter, the incident was reported at Police Station Gandhinagar, whereupon an FIR (Ex.P-1) for the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC and 3(i)(xi) of the Act was registered being against the acucsed/appellant. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, against the accused/appellant for the offence under Section 354 IPC and 3(i)(xi) of the Act. Thereafter, learned trial Court framed charge under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act, in alternate under Section 354 of IPC, to which the accused/appellant abjured his guilt and prayed for trial.

3. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 05 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the F.I.R. The alleged incident occurred on 24.12.2006, whereas the F.I.R. was lodged on 26.01.2007 i.e. after 32 days of the incident. The prosecutrix (PW-1) has failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for such delay, and the learned Trial Court erred in not properly appreciating this material aspect. Learned counsel further submits that even if the contents of the F.I.R. are taken at their face value, the allegations do not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(XI) of the Act. The F.I.R. has been lodged due to previous enmity between the parties. It appears that the complaint was filed only after the dispute between them could not be amicably settled. The Learned Trial Court failed to consider this aspect in its proper perspective. Learned counsel also submits that there are material contradicti