Judgment ( 1. ) THIS Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) Cr. P. C. has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence dated 22. 02. 2007 passed by Special Judge, Chhindwara in Special Case No. 66/06, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 354 of I. P. C. and 3 (1) (xi)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentenced only under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to S. I. For 6 months, in default of payment of fine to further undergo S. I. for 15 days. ( 2. ) PROSECUTION case in short is that Ku. Lalita Kumre (Guruji), E. G. S. Unnat primary School. Lehra submitted the written application to her immediate superior officer with regard to the fact that on 05. 05. 2006 at 11:30 a. m. appellant Devi prasad Vishwakarma. Block Resources Coordinator outraged her modesty during the course of inspection of the School. He also threatened her to remove from service in case of disclosure of this incident to anybody else. This report was sent to police station Pandhurna which was received on 09. 05. 2006. The inquiry was made on it. The statement of complainant and her parents were recorded. Thereafter on 02. 06. 2006 Crime No. 247/2006 under Section 354 I. P. C. and 3 (1) (xi)of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was registered against the appellant. She was sent for medical examination but no external injuries were found on her person. Spot map was prepared. The caste certificate was seized. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of C. J. M. , Chhindwara who committed this case to the Sessions Court for trial. ( 3. ) THE appellant was charged under Sections 354 of I. P. C. and 3 (1) (xi) of the scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses but the appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. Appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated. Prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses but the appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After appreciating the evidence trial Court found him guilty for the offences charged and sentenced under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act only as stated hereinabove in para no. 1 of this judgment. Being aggrieved by the judgment, finding and sentence the instant appeal has been preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. ( 4. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant is working on the post of Block Resources Coordinator. His duty was to inspect the anganwadi and other institutions under the Rajeev Gandhi Shiksha Mission. The complainant is working on the post of Guruji in Unnat Primary School, Lehra. On 27. 04. 2006 the appellant inspected the record of the School and found that record was not complete. On 05. 05. 2006 at 9:30 a. m. in the morning he again went there and pointed out some irregularities but she has falsely implicated him alleging that he has outraged her modesty She has lodged the F. I. R. to save herself from the consequences of the irregularities committed by her. It is also submitted that the report has been made at the instance of some higher officers who are inimical in terms with appellant and intend to get him removed from service. Learned counsel further submitted that there is inordinate delay in lodging the F. I. R. The conduct of the complainant is highly unnatural because she came with the appellant on the same Motorcycle after the incident. If actually this incident has been occurred, she would have never accompanied the appellant. This shows that the story is false and concocted and the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the same in proper perspective. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no iota of evidence that appellant committed this offence knowing the complainant being a member of Scheduled Tribe, no offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no iota of evidence that appellant committed this offence knowing the complainant being a member of Scheduled Tribe, no offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out. The trial court has committed an illegality in founding him guilty under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act which deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel further submitted that the complainant and the appellant both have filed a compromise petition before this Court and there are cordial relations in between the parties. They are of the same department. The appellant is in government service, therefore, the fact of the compromise entered in between the parties be also kept in view. ( 5. ) SHRI R. S. Dubey, learned counsel for the complainant also submitted that the parties have voluntarily entered into the compromise and the compromise petition has been filed before this Court, therefore, considering the same the appellant be acquitted from the charges. ( 6. ) ON the contrary, Shri G. P. Singh, learned Dy. G. A. appearing on behalf of the respondent/state supported the impugned judgment, finding and sentence passed by the trial Court mainly contending that appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced, therefore, it does not call for any interference. ( 7. ) THE main point for consideration in this appeal is that whether the trial court has committed any illegality in convicting and sentencing the appellant under section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989? ( 8. ) KU. Lalita Kumre (PW-1)has stated that on 05 05. 2006 this appellant came to her house and carried to the School. She accompanied him on his Motorcycle. He inspected the school and pointed out some irregularities. Thereafter he tried to snatch her hand and caught hold of her breast for which she objected. She was also threatened to be removed from service. On 06. 05. 2006 she sent written report ex. P/-7 to her superior officer. Thereafter she returned at her house along with appellant himself on his motorcycle. ( 9. ) THIS witness has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination wherein she has stated that it is her responsibility to maintain the school records properly. On 06. 05. 2006 she sent written report ex. P/-7 to her superior officer. Thereafter she returned at her house along with appellant himself on his motorcycle. ( 9. ) THIS witness has been subjected to a lengthy cross-examination wherein she has stated that it is her responsibility to maintain the school records properly. She has also admitted that she kept entire record at her house and this appellant checked the same at her house on 27. 04. 2006. She has also admitted that after checking the record he made certain comments against her. She has also admitted that on 05. 05. 2006 when the appellant again inspected the record the same was still incomplete. He asked her to give the account of Rs. 8,000/- but she could not satisfactorily replied for it. ( 10. ) THUS, from her statement it is apparent that she was not maintaining the school record properly and this appellant noticed the irregularities in keeping the account. It appears that she apprehended that the appellant may move for some departmental action against her, therefore, she lodged the complaint against the appellant. ( 11. ) FURTHER, this witness has been contradicted from her police statement (Ex. D-1)wherein it is not mentioned that the appellant caught hold of her hand and tried to press her breast, therefore, she is for the first time giving this statement before the Court regarding snatching her hand and catching her breast. Such statement cannot be relied upon because it does not find place in the police statement (Ex. D-1 ). ( 12. ) IT is very strange that this complainant returned with the appellant even after the incident. It goes to show that nothing was happened otherwise there was no occasion to accompany with the appellant himself. This shows the highly unnatural conduct of complainant Ku. Lalita Kumre. ( 13. ) ANOKA Bai (PW-5) who is mother of this complainant has also stated that her daughter also did not tell her about this incident about 2-3 days but thereafter she told. She has also admitted that the complainant returned with the appellant on the same motorcycle and at that time she did not tell anything about this incident and she was looking very much pleased. The evidence of this witness shows that if something might have been happened with complainant then she would have immediately made complaint to her mother. She has also admitted that the complainant returned with the appellant on the same motorcycle and at that time she did not tell anything about this incident and she was looking very much pleased. The evidence of this witness shows that if something might have been happened with complainant then she would have immediately made complaint to her mother. It indicates that nothing was happened on that day. ( 14. ) SARVESH Kumar (PW-6) has been produced as an eyewitness but he has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. He has also admitted in cross-examination that the appellant pointed out some irregularities in school record and directed the complainant to complete the same. The statement of this witness is quite natural which also finds support from other circumstances of the case. ( 15. ) IT seems that this complaint was the repercussion of the irregularities pointed out by the appellant with intent to save herself from the consequences to be ensued as a result of such irregularities. It is evident that the complainant did not lodge any report in police. She sent the complaint to the officer of her department who sent to concerned police station which was received on 09. 05. 2006 and after inquiry the F. I. R. was lodged on 02. 06. 2006. Thus, there is delay in lodging the F. I. R. ( 16. ) THE complainant was examined after near about one month and no external injuries were noticed on her person as is evident from medical report (Ex. P-5 ). ( 17. ) THERE is no iota of evidence that the appellant committed the offence knowing the complainant being a member of Scheduled Tribes. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Shankarlal v. State of M. P. , 2005 (1) MPLJ 449 (ii) Ramdas and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2007 sc 155. ( 18. ) THUS, from the foregoing discussion, it can be said that the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective. The trial Court has failed to understand the circumstances in which incident is said to have been occurred. Such allegations are very easy to make but very difficult to rebut. Therefore, the entire facts and circumstances of the case be kept in view. The trial Court has failed to understand the circumstances in which incident is said to have been occurred. Such allegations are very easy to make but very difficult to rebut. Therefore, the entire facts and circumstances of the case be kept in view. The evidence be scanned and appreciated in such a way so as to arrive at a correct conclusion eliminating the possibility of false implication on account of some vengeance or any other such reason. The finding of guilt is erroneous which deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. ( 19. ) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 354 of I. P. C. and 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and sentence passed under section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail. His bail bonds are discharged. He be set at liberty. Appeal allowed.