JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal impugns the judgment dated 6.12.1997 of the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity Cases) jhalawar whereby the accused-appellant (for short the accused) was convicted and sentenced under section 3(i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer two months simple imprisonment. 2. Brief resume of the facts is that the informant Dr. Om Prakash Meena, Medical Officer Primary Health Centre Avor instituted a written report on 25.9.1995 with the Police Station Pagariya that at about 11.00 p.m. the accused who was compounder abused him and called 'Neech, Chamar and Bhangi'. The accused wanted to kill him and was having knife and gun in his hands. The P.S. Pagaria registered a case under section 3 of the Act and investigation commenced. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was laid and the case was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge. Charges under sections 504 & 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act were framed. The appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The accused examined one defence witness. The informant and the accused entered into compromise which was attested by the learned Special Judge on 27.2.1997. The learned Special Judge vide impugned judgment acquitted the accused from the charges under sections 504 & 506 IPC on the basis of compromise but convicted under section 3(i)(x) of the Act as indicated here in above. 3. I have reflected over the rival submissions and carefully scanned the record of the case. 4. To attract the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, it is necessary that the alleged incident should be occurred at a place where public could view it. 5. In the case on hand the informant Dr. Om Prakash (PW 1) in his cross-examina-tion deposed that at the time of the incident there was complete darkness and Ganesh and Heera Maharaj were there but Ganesh and Heera Maharaj have not been examined by the prosecution. Dr. Om Prakash (PW 1) has made improvement in his statement. Other prosecution witnesses have not supported the deposition of Dr. Om Prakash. Dr. Om Prakash (PW 1) has made improvement in his statement. Other prosecution witnesses have not supported the deposition of Dr. Om Prakash. Witness Hasan (PW 4) only stated that the accused was hurling abuses and had a gun in his hand. He did not depose that the accused called Dr. Om Prakash as 'Bhangi Chamar Neech Meena Doctor'. Witness Taj Mohd., (PW 5) did not say that the accused was abusing the informant. Nanhen Khan (PW 6) deposed that the accused called the informant 'Sali Neech Jati Bahar Nikal' but his statement does not inspire confidence. In the cross-examination the witness stated that incident no doubt, had taken place at night but there was light. Whereas the informant Dr. Om Prakash (PW 1) deposed that there was complete darkness. The accused examined Heera Lal (DW 1) who stated that relation of accused Dilip Singh and witness Nanhen Khan (PW 6) were enemical. On the report of accused Dilip Singh, witness Nanhen Khan was bound down by the Court. Certified copies (Ex. D/1) of complaint instituted under sections 107 & 116 Cr.P.C. and Bail bonds (Ex. D/2) of Nanhe Khan were filed by the witness. Heera Lal (DW 1) was not cross-examined. Therefore Nanhen Khan (PW 6) is the interested witness and his presence at the time of incident becomes doubtful. 6. The prosecution, thus failed to establish that the alleged incident occurred at a place when public could view it. The informant is a doctor and the accused is his subordinate. They have entered into compromise. The statement of informant has not been corroborated by the witnesses. More so there are improvements in the statement of the informant Dr. Om Prakash. Independent witnesses whose houses have been shown in the site plan have not been produced. Learned Special Judge did not notice these infirmities while deciding the case. The charge under section 3(i)(x) of the Act is not proved against the accused. 7. Resultantly, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the accused stands acquitted from the charge under section 3(i)(x) of the Act. He is on bail his bail bonds stand discharged. The record be sent back.Appeal allowed. *******