( 1 ) FEEING aggreved by the judgment dated 3-3-1994 passed in sessions Trial No. 487/92 by lllrd Additional sessions Judge, Shajapur whereby the appellants were found guilty lor the offence punishable under S. 3 (i) (x) of the SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities Act and under s. 323 of IPC and were sentenced lor six months rigorous imprisonment and line of rs. 50/~ and one months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 250/- each, this appeal has been preferred by the appellants. ( 2 ) THE prosecution story in brief was this that on 3-1 1-1992 at about 9. 00 a. m. when complainant-Narayan was working at his agricultural field then appellant No. 2-Roshan came there eith his bullock and tried to pass through the field of complainant-Narayan. Complinant objected then appellant-Roshan used filthy language and called him "bhangad. " His brother appellant no. 1-Prem also came there to caught hold of the complainant and then appellant-Roshan caused simple injury to the complainant by means of a 'pirana' thereafter both the appellants fled away from there. Complainant lodged report Ex. P2 at Police station Kalapipal regarding the incident. The matter was investigated and thereafter charge-sheet was filed against the present apf ellants before learned Magistrate who committed the case for trial to Special Judge and IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge. Appellants, before trial Court, abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. Learned trial Court after recording evidence of prosecution witnesses and after giving opportunity for defence evidence, by the impugned judgment, found appellants guilty, and convicted and sentenced them as stated hereinabove. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant-Shri sidldiqui submitted that in the facts of the case offence punishable under S. 3 (i) (x) of the: SC/st Act is not at all made out as the necessary evidence in this regard is totally missing in this case. He has further submitted that though the alleged place of incident was open field of complainant-Narayan p. W. 2 but at the time of incident as per prosecution story itself nobody else, except complaiinant-Narayan and present appellants, was present there. It has further been submitted that as per FIR Ex. P-2 one Jaswant was the person who came there with his bullock and abused complainant and called him "bhangad. It has further been submitted that as per FIR Ex. P-2 one Jaswant was the person who came there with his bullock and abused complainant and called him "bhangad. " Name of appellant-Roshan as ;a person who abused complainant and insulted him, has not been mentioned in the fir It has further been submitted that initially offence has been registered against, jaswant s/o Ramprasad and appellant No. 1-Premnarayan s/o Ramprasad, but subsequently, at the place of Jaswant, appellant no. 2-Roshan s/o Ramprasad was prosecuted without any basis. It is also contended that there are variance between the statement given by complainant-Narayan p. W. 2 in the Court and his earliest statement recorded in FIR Ex P-2. It is also contended that so far as appellant-Premnarayan is concerned as per prosecution story itself he came to the spot later on when called by jaswant and he had not said anything in-sulting complainant in the name of his caste. Therefore, on the basis of all these submissions learned counsel for the appellant urged that, learned trial Court committed an error, in finding appellants guilty for the offence punishable under S. 3 (i) (x) of the Act. ( 4 ) BEFORE trial Court prosecution examined Amritlal P. W. 1, Narayan P. W. 2, Kailash. P. W. 3, Laljiram P. W. 4, Head Constable and investigating Officer M. L. Karere Sub-Inspector and scriber of FIR Ex. P-2 and Dr. S. C. Jaiswal P. W. 6 who examined complainant-Narayan medically. Out of these witnesses Amritlal P. W. 1 has not supported the story of prosecution and has been declared hostile. Witness Kailash P. W. 3 testified only to the effect that complainant came to his house and narrated the story to him. and, therefore, he comes in the category of hearsay witness. ( 5 ) COMPLAINANT-NARAYAN P. W. 2 is the only person who has given statement against the present appellants. He deposed before the trial Court that when he was at his agricultural field then in the morning at about 9. 00 a. m. appellant-Roshan came there with his bullock because he wanted to provide water to the bullocks when complainant objected on the ground that bullock may destroy his earthen small dam, then appellant-Roshan used filthy language and called him "bhangad" because he is a person belonging to low caste. 00 a. m. appellant-Roshan came there with his bullock because he wanted to provide water to the bullocks when complainant objected on the ground that bullock may destroy his earthen small dam, then appellant-Roshan used filthy language and called him "bhangad" because he is a person belonging to low caste. He has also deposed that at that time appellant-Premnarayan Was not there and he was far away to whom appellant-Roshan called by raising his voice. Appellant-Premnarayan thereafter came there and caught hold of the complainant and then appellant-Roshan caused Lathi blows to the complainant and caused injuries to him. Therefore he narrated the story to brother Kailash and one Ramcharan pandit. ( 6 ) IN the FIR a different story was narrated, as per the story narrated to the police while lodging the FIR it was told by the complainant that Jaswant s/o Ramprasad came to his field with bullock and it was jaswant s/o Ramprasad who used filthy language and called him "bhangad" who was trying to equate himself with Jaswant and thereafter it was Jaswant who called prem and thereafter, also it was Jaswant who caused injuries to the complainant. In the whole of FIR Ex. P-2 name of appellantroshan has not been mentioned anywhere, not even as a person who was present at the time of incident. He was not even referred in any respect in the FIR and entire allegations were made against one Jaswant who has not been prosecuted by the police. Investigating Officer Laljiram P. W. 4 has not given any explanation for substituting name of appellant No. 2-Roshan at the place of name of accused-Jaswant in the chargesheet. M. L. Karela P. W. 5 Sub-Inspector has categorically stated in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief that it was complainant-Narayan himself who told the name of jaswant while lodging FIR. Therefore, there is no explanation from the prosecution for not prosecuting Jaswant and for prosecuting appellant-Roshan at the place of jaswant. ( 7 ) WHEN during cross-examination defence tried to seek explanation from complainant-Narayan. Complainant-Narayan deposed that in FIR report Ex. P-2 he himself told the name of Jaswant at B to B and c to C portion. Thereafter he deposed that by telling the name of Jaswant he wanted to mean for Roshan and in the FIR whenever the name of Jaswant has come he in fact meant for Roshan. Complainant-Narayan deposed that in FIR report Ex. P-2 he himself told the name of Jaswant at B to B and c to C portion. Thereafter he deposed that by telling the name of Jaswant he wanted to mean for Roshan and in the FIR whenever the name of Jaswant has come he in fact meant for Roshan. He has admitted in very specific words that he knows that Jaswant is the elder brother of appellant-Roshan and then he also admitted that Jaswant never caused any injuries to him and the name of jaswant was narrated by him by mistake. ( 8 ) FROM the admission of the complain-ant himself and from the FIR Ex. P-2 it is clear that initially name of Jaswant was told by complainant-Narayan to the police as a person who abused him and insulted him by the name of his caste, and who caused injuries to him and thereafter by making material improvement in his statement in the Court he narrated the name of Appellant No. 2-Roshan for the first time while deposing as a prosecution witness. In view of this statement given by complainantnarayan regarding appellant-Roshan as a main accused and telling his name as a person who used filthy language and insulted him in the name of his caste is the material improvement amounting to contradiction from FIR Ex. P-2 and, therefore, cannot be believed and learned trial Court has committed an grave error in believing this portion of witness Narayan for the purpose of convicting appellant No. 2-Roshan. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant drawn attention of this Court towards the judgment passed by a single Bench of this court in the case of Jashrat Singh v. State of M. P. (2005 MPLJ (iv) page 363) in which it has been held that "mere calling a person from the caste name without prove of any intention of insulting or humiliating him does not constitute the offence punishable under S. 3 MM of the SC/st Act. " In that case the words were "chamar Panchayat Ho rahi Hai, Chamar meeting Karne Lage Hain etc. " whereas in the facts of the present case the words and were "bhangad Hamari barabrt Karta Hai. " In that case the words were "chamar Panchayat Ho rahi Hai, Chamar meeting Karne Lage Hain etc. " whereas in the facts of the present case the words and were "bhangad Hamari barabrt Karta Hai. " Those words were also not used by any of the present appellants, but by a person who has not been prosecuted and that too at the place where no person was present to listen the abusing filthy language and before whom complainant was insulted or humiliated. ( 10 ) CONSIDERING from all angles in the facts of the present case prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubts that any of the appellants committed any act of insult or humiliation towards the complainant who belongs to Scheduled Castes and, therefore, prosecution failed to bring home the charge punishable under S. 3 (i) (x) of the sc/st Act, therefore, so far as this charge is concerned the appeal preferred by the appellants succeeds and is allowed and they are acquitted form this charge. ( 11 ) THEREAFTER, the only question remains for consideration regarding the charge punishable under S. 323 of the IPC in this regard complainant-Narayan and appellants herein have already submitted a written application under S- 320 (5) of the Cr. P. C. for granting them permission to compound the offence as the dispute between them have already been settled through advise given by of other elder age villagers. ( 12 ) CONSIDERING the facts and circumstances of the case permission to compound the offence is granted, joint application filed by both the parties is allowed and in view of this compromise appellants are acquitted from the charge of S. 323 of the I. P. C. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the appeal preferred by appellants is allowed and they are acquitted from all charges. Appeal allowed. .