JUDGMENT . 1. Appellant has challenged his conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge, Hoshangabad in Special Case No. 44/1991, decided on 11.2.1994. 2. Appellant has been convicted under section 3 (i) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act') and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the impugned judgment. 3. According to prosecution, prosecutrix is a member of Scheduled Tribe. On 4.12.1991, at about 40' clock in the evening, prosecutrix had gone to her field, situated near village Basaniya to graze her cattle alongwith one Amardas, aged about six years. Appellant Ram Vilas then came there and asked her to give some berry, but the prosecutrix refused. Appellant then tried to catch hold of her sari with intent to outrage her modesty and also pressed her hands. Her sari was torn in the incident. Prosecutrix came back to her house and narrated the whole incident to her brother Shambhoo, her mother and sister-in-law. The FIR of the incident was lodged by her brother Shambhoo, next day, on the basis of which an offence was registered against the appellant. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under section 354 of IPC and section 3 (i) (xi) of the Act and was tried before Special Judge, Hoshangabad. 4. Appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 5. Learned special Judge after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case found the appellant guilty under section 3 (i) (xi) of the Act for using criminal force on a woman of Scheduled Tribe with intent to outrage her modesty and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the FIR of the incident was never lodged by the prosecutrix herself and the appellant was falsely implicated at the instance of one Surajpratap, who had enmity with the appellant. He further submitted that the evidence on record suffered from material inconsistencies and infirmities and did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond doubt and he was erroneously convicted on the basis of infirm and unreliable evidence. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported and justified the impugned judgment. 8. Perused the evidence on record. 9. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, supported and justified the impugned judgment. 8. Perused the evidence on record. 9. The FIR of the incident was not lodged by the prosecutrix (PW 2) herself, it was lodged by her brother Shambhoo (PW 1), next day. However, PW 1 Shambhoo stated in his examination-in-chief that when his sister had gone to the field to graze her cattle, appellant's cattle entered into her field, which led to an altercation between them and his sister (prosecutrix) never complained of any use of criminal force by appellant against her. When this witness was cross-examined by the prosecution, he conceded that he had lodged the report (Ex. P-l) about use of criminal force by the appellant against his sister, but again during his cross-examination, in para 5, he admitted that his sister never told him of any incident of Jhuma-Jhatki by the appellant. 10. Complainant Shambhoo (PW 1) also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not go to the police station to lodge the report immediately and he went to Surajpratap of village Jasniya and he lodged the report with the police as advised by Surajpratap. He also admitted that appellant Ram Vilas and Surajpratap were on enmical terms. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts, FIR (Ex. P-1) lodged by Shambhoo (PW 1) appears to be lodged at the instance of one Surajpratap who was admittedly on enmical terms with the appellant and not on facts narrated by the prosecutrix (PW 2), which creates a reasonable doubt as to the truthfulness of the facts stated in the FIR (Ex. P-l). 12. The evidence of prosecutrix (PW 2) herself also suffers from material infirmities. In the first instance, she deposed that when she was drinking water near the canal, appellant had pulled her sari and when she tried to run away, her sari was torn. The other moment, she said in para 5 of her deposition that her sari was torn in Jhuma-jhatki and appellant had simply done Jhuma-Jhatki with her and said nothing else; but she gave an exaggerated version in para 8 during her cross-examination. She clearly admitted in her evidence that when appellant's cattle entered into her field, she had abused the appellant and then in Jhuma-Jhatki, her sari was torn. Her statement about malafide offering of fifty rupee note by the appellant also appears to be doubtful. She clearly admitted in her evidence that when appellant's cattle entered into her field, she had abused the appellant and then in Jhuma-Jhatki, her sari was torn. Her statement about malafide offering of fifty rupee note by the appellant also appears to be doubtful. There was a suggestion in her cross-examination that appellant was offering her money for giving him berry. Prosecutrix (PW 2) also admitted in cross-examination that appellant was asking for berry. 13. PW 3 Samotibai, sister-in-law of prosecutrix, also admitted in her cross-examination that the prosecutrix never told her that the appellant had offered fifty rupee note to her with malafides or with intent to outrage her modesty. The evidence of Samotibai (PW 3) also indicated that prosecutrix had informed her that appellant's cattle had entered into her field, which led to an altercation between them and her sari was torn in the scuffle. 14. In view of aforesaid facts, the statement of prosecutrix (PW 2) made in para 8 of her deposition appears to be an exaggerated version and cannot be accepted beyond all reasonable doubts. Moreover, prosecutrix (PW 2) never lodged any report herself and the FIR was lodged by her brother Shambhoo (PW 1), as per the advise and direction of one Surajpratap, who had enmity with the appellant. Thus, the whole evidence against the appellant becomes doubtful. In any case, the evidence of the prosecutrix (PW 2) against the appellant does not inspire confidence. 15. In fact, the evidence available on record did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective and erred in convicting the appellant under section 3 (i) (xi) of the Act. 16. Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellant and the impugned sentence awarded to him under section 3 (i) (xi) of the Act are set aside and appellant is acquitted of the charge. 17. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal is accordingly disposed of.