Judgment :- T.M. Hassan Pillai, J. This appeal is directed against the judgement and order of conviction passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ernakulam in C.C. No. 30/94 whereby he found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Section 3541.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Consequent on conviction the appellant was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the 'Act', and no separate sentence was awarded by the trial court for the commission of the offence under Section 354 I.P.C. 2. The prosecution case stated in the judgment under appeal is that on 3.4.1993 at about 11 a.m. at the Keezhillam Parambi Peedika road leading towards east from Perumbavoor-Moovattupuzha M.C. road at Keezhillam Kara in Rayamangalam Village appellant "caught hold of both breast" of Karthika (PW-1), who is a member of the Scheduled Caste, from behind and when she resisted the appellant hit on her back with a stone, which was picked up from the road by the appellant. Thus it is alleged by the prosecution, the appellant committed the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 3541.P.C. and also under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. 3. The case was registered on the basis of Ext. P1 statement of PW-1 recorded by PW-9, who was the Head Constable attached to Kuruppampady Police Station on the next day of the alleged incident, and the then Sub Inspector of Police, Kuruppampady Police Station, registered a case in Crime No. 66/93. F.I.R. lodged is Ext. P11. The investigation was taken up by PW-10, who was the then Circle Inspector of Police, and after completing the investigation, he laid the challan against the appellant before the Sessions Court, Ernakulam alleging the commission of the aforesaid offences. 4. To connect the appellant with the crime alleged as many as 10 witnesses were examined and Exts. P1 to P13 were marked. 4. To connect the appellant with the crime alleged as many as 10 witnesses were examined and Exts. P1 to P13 were marked. The defence case of the appellant was that PW-4, who is the husband of PW-1, was a subscriber to the Kuri conducted by him (accused-appellant) as Foreman and PW-1's husband, who was a prized subscriber, defaulted in making the subscriptions to the Kuri and when demand for the defaulted subscriptions was made there ensued a quarrel between the appellant and PW-1's husband. It was on account of the enmity such a false case has been foisted against him. 5. Theleaned trial judge on a consideration of the evidence held that the prosecution succeeded in establishing the charge levelled against under Sections 3541.P.C. and Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and imposed sentence on one count. 6. Assailing the conviction the learned counsel for the appellant contended vehemently that no endeavour was made by the learned Sessions Judge to analyse and appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective, though sufficient materials are available to hold that the culprit is not identified at the time of alleged commission of an offence by PW-1 and no attempt was made by the prosecution to conduct a test identification parade. Counsel argued that in her evidence PW-1 has not clearly implicated the accused-appellant as the perpetrator of the crime and the learned judge should have discarded the evidence given by PW-1 implicating the appellant. Counsel for the appellant also contended that there is no consistent case for the prosecution regarding the place of the incident ie. in the earliest version of the incident given by PW-1 in Ext. P1 she has stated that the place of incident is a thoudu (pathway) which is passing through arubber estate belonging to one Yoyakki, whereas in the evidence given by her the place of incident is described as a Panchayat road having a width of 5.16 meteres and according to the prosecution, it is motor able road. He contended that no credence can be given to the evidence given by PW-6, who is a child witness and the learned counsel submitted that the evidence given by PW-6 contradicted materially with the evidence given by PW-1 regarding outraging of her modesty. He contended that no credence can be given to the evidence given by PW-6, who is a child witness and the learned counsel submitted that the evidence given by PW-6 contradicted materially with the evidence given by PW-1 regarding outraging of her modesty. The learned counsel also brought to my notice the fact that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to prove that the appellant is not a member of Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe and he contended vehemetnly that as the prosecution failed to prove that fact, the trial judge erred grossly in holding that the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act was made out. 7. The learned Public Prosecutor has not taken pains to support the finding of the learned Sessions Judge, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove its case. 7. Being an appeal against conviction this Court has to re-apraise the entire evidence and enter a finding regarding the culpability or otherwise of the accused-appellant making a close scrutiny of evidence 8. Let me first deal with the evidence led by the prosecution regarding the commission of an of fence under Section 3(1)(xi)of the Act. For proving a charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act it is imperative on the prosecution to prove that accused is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. PW-1 deposed that she is a member of the Harijan Community and Ext P3 caste certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Kunnathunadu Taluk (PW-3) also proved that she is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. No attempt was made by the prosecution to prove that the accused-appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. PW-1 has not stated that the accused-appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Tribe and he is a Christian or member of any other community. Her evidence shows that she has no knowledge regarding the community of appellant. Prosecution failed to discharge its bounden duty to prove that appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove that the appellant is not a member of Scheduled or Scheduled Tribe is the evidence given by PW-10, the Investigating Officer. Prosecution failed to discharge its bounden duty to prove that appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The evidence relied on by the prosecution to prove that the appellant is not a member of Scheduled or Scheduled Tribe is the evidence given by PW-10, the Investigating Officer. It is clear from his evidence that he has no direct knowledge regarding the community of appellant and his assertion is that investigation was conducted by him to ascertain or to find out the community of appellant (his assertion is that he questioned the neighbours). None of the neighbours was examined by the prosecution to prove that appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. PW-10's evidence on that aspect which is based on the statements of neighbours of appellant made during the course of investigation is to be discarded on the ground that it is unacceptable. Since the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant is not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it cannot be held that offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act was committed by him. (Paras. 10 to 14 omitted being appreciation of facts ) 15. The learned Sessions Judge has given wholly unsound reasons to enter a finding regarding guilt of the appellant and no attempt was made by the learned Sessions Judge to appreciate the evidence in the proper perspective and the finding recorded by him is infirm and unsupportable as it is based on perverse appreciation of evidence. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the conviction of the appellant under S.354IPC and S.3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The bail bond if any executed by him stands discharged.