Judgment ( 1 ) 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction dated 24-11-1995 passed by the learned 2nd additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Special case No. 36 of 1993, whereby the appellant/ accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 3 (l) (x) of The scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 506 of Indian Penal Code, for which the State did not prefer any appeal against acquittal. ( 2 ) BRIEF case of prosecution is stated as under :- (A) Complainant Bhagwat (P. W. 1) owns agricultural land at village Shingori and he had employed Sudhakar (P. W. 2) and Kisna (P. W. 3) as labourers for the purpose of cultivation of his land. (B) On 21 -7-1993 both the labourers had gone in the field and were engaged in the agricultural operations till 18-00 hours of that day. The accused is said to have suddenly come there because the labourers had unyoked the bullocks and left them for grazing on the common boundary of the field. The accused on arrival abused Kisna and Sudhakar by referring to their castes by uttering the words "gondlya, Maharya and Dhedgya". Sudhakar belongs to Gond caste whereas Kisna belongs to Mahar caste. The accused also threatened that the complainant would have been killed had he been present in the field. He also "took away the bullocks. Thereafter Sudhakar and Kisna had come in the village and informed the aforesaid incident to their master Bhagwat at about 8-00 or 9-00 p. m. who rushed to the police station Benoda and lodged the written report at about 23-00 hours. P. S. I. Yerule took up the investigation, visited the spot on the next day and drew the spot panchanama in presence of panch witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions judge framed and explained the charge to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the trial proceeded with. P. S. I. Yerule took up the investigation, visited the spot on the next day and drew the spot panchanama in presence of panch witnesses. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. ( 3 ) THE learned Additional Sessions judge framed and explained the charge to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and, therefore, the trial proceeded with. The prosecution has examined five witnesses and mainly relied on the evidence of Sudhakar (P. W. 2) and Kisna (P. W. 3) in order to bring home the guilt at the doors of the accused. The defence of the accused is that he has been falsely implicated due to political rivalry. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on appreciation of the evidence has convicted the accused for the offence punishable under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and sentenced him as mentioned above. This judgment and order of conviction is under challenge in this appeal. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant/accused contended that the evidence of complainant Bhagwat (P. W. 1) would only indicate that he had lodged the first information report at the police station on getting information from his labourers Sudhakar and Kisna. He contended that whatever is mentioned in the first information report is nothing but an outcome of due deliberation because of the political rivalry. He contended that if at all Sudhakar and kisna were abused by the accused by referring to their castes, it would have, in all the probability, attracted the provisions of Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and it would have been one out of them who would have lodged the first information report. He contended that the first information report was lodged at 23-30 hours and the delay in lodging the first information report coupled with the fact of deliberation in getting the report scribed at the village itself would indicate that the case is nothing but a concoction. He contended that no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution to corroborate the testimony of the two witnesses-Sudhakar and Kisna and it would not be safe and in fact it would be dangerous to place reliance on their uncorroborated testimony. He, therefore, contended that the order of conviction passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law. He, therefore, contended that the order of conviction passed by the learned additional Sessions Judge is not sustainable in law. Therefore, the appeal may kindly be allowed and the accused be acquitted of the offence for which he has been convicted. ( 5 ) THE learned A. P. P. contended that police station Benoda is 17 kms. away from village Shingori. He contended that Sudhakar and Kisna were the only persons. who were present in the field and worked in the field of the complainant from 7-00 a. m. till 18-00 hours. He contended that the bullocks of the complainant were left for grazing on the common boundary of the fields and the accused on arrival was enraged because he found that the bullocks were grazing in the boundary of his field. He contended that the accused had taken away the bullocks and while leaving the field he had abused Sudhakar and Kisna by referring to their castes by addressing them "gondlya, Maharya and Dhedgya". He contended that the evidence of Sudhakar (P. W. 2) has been corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of Kisna (P. W. 3) and therefore the learned Additional Sessions judge was perfectly justified in convicting the accused for the offence punishable u/s. 3 (1) (x) of the Act and no interference into the impugned judgment and order of conviction is warranted and the appeal may kindly be dismissed. ( 6 ) THIS Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. Before appreciation of evidence, it is necessary to reproduce Section 3 (1 ) (x) of the Act which reads as under :- "3. Punishment for offences of atrocities.- (1)Whoever, not being a member of a scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- (x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. " ( 7 ) SIMPLE reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused has intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe within public view. " ( 7 ) SIMPLE reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it is necessary for the prosecution to establish that the accused has intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe within public view. In the instant case, it is true that the incident is said to have taken place in the field of the complainant which was within the view of the other agriculturists. But there is no evidence to show that the complainant intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate a member of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe by uttering the words "gondlya, Maharya, dhedgya" except the bare words of the interested witnesses Sudhakar and Kisna. ( 8 ) IT is not in dispute that the field of complainant is adjoining to the field of the accused. It is also not in dispute that there is common boundary in between the fields. It is also not disputed that the bullocks of the complainant were found grazing on the common boundary of the fields and particularly in the area owned by the accused. It also does not appear to be in dispute that the accused had taken the bullocks to the cattle pond and had impounded them there. Therefore, naturally the complainant was aggrieved as his bullocks were impounded in the cattle pond. Be that as it may, one thing is certain that there is political rivalry between the complainant and the accused. ( 9 ) FORMERLY, the complainant was the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat and during his regime there was some misappropriation of the funds of the Gram Panchayat, for which the brother of the accused had lodged the complaint after the term of the complainant was over. This fact would clearly show that there was a reason for the complainant to implicate the accused falsely in this case. ( 10 ) WHAT is significant to note is that the accused is said to have abused Sudhakar and kisna by referring to their caste by uttering the words "gondlya, Maharya and Dhedgya" but neither Sudhakar nor Kisna had come forward to lodge the report at the police station. ( 10 ) WHAT is significant to note is that the accused is said to have abused Sudhakar and kisna by referring to their caste by uttering the words "gondlya, Maharya and Dhedgya" but neither Sudhakar nor Kisna had come forward to lodge the report at the police station. Therefore, there is reason to believe that the complainant Bhagwat (P. W. 1) wanted to book the accused by taking the help of his labourers sudhakar and Kisna and, in such circumstances, it would be difficult to place implicit reliance on the interested testimony of these two witnesses. ( 11 ) ON close scrutiny of the evidence of these two witnesses, it would reveal that their evidence is inconsistent on a material point. When it is a fact that the accused had taken away the bullocks which were found grazing on the common boundary and had impounded them in the cattle pond, the witnesses Sudhakar and Kisna did not whisper about it either in the examination-in-chief or in the cross- examination, whereas the complainant Bhagwat has specifically stated in his examination-in- chief that he was informed that his bullocks are kept in the cattle pond and thereafter he came to the police station and lodged the report. The complainant, however, in his cross-examination states like this "it is not correct that on the date of incident my bullocks were kept in the cattle pond by the brother of the accused". The aforesaid version of the complainant is quite inconsistent with the version of Sudhakar and kisna and when the complainant admits in unequivocal terms in his cross-examination that from the years 1986 to 1992 he was Sarpanch of the village Shingori and thereafter one Vinod mohite was the Sarpanch of the village, he is the brother of the accused and that when he was sarpanch there was account of Gram Panchayat in the Post office having account No. 382719 and he knows that because of the complaint of vinod Mohite the Postal Inspector had held enquiry into the aforesaid postal account of the gram Panchayat. ( 12 ) WHAT is interesting to note is that the complainant had also filed one Criminal Case no. 1185/90 (State Vs. Ramdas @ Babarao) in which his evidence has been recorded and in that case Kisna (P. W. 3) is cited as a witness. ( 12 ) WHAT is interesting to note is that the complainant had also filed one Criminal Case no. 1185/90 (State Vs. Ramdas @ Babarao) in which his evidence has been recorded and in that case Kisna (P. W. 3) is cited as a witness. In such circumstances, it would be quite unsafe to place reliance on the bare words of sudhakar and Kisna and, therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned additional Sessions Judge has committed an error in appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution in proof of guilt of the accused. Further, the delay in lodging the first information report coupled with the fact that there was a due deliberation before it was lodged and a written report was prepared at village Shingori itself would be fatal to the prosecution especially when the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction cannot be sustained in law and the same is set aside and the accused is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. His bail and bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.