Judgment :- Pachhapure, J. The appellant has challenged his conviction and sentence for the offence punishable U /Ss. 341 and 323 IPC and Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the S.C., S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (herein after called as the Act) on a trial held by the Special Judge, D.K., Mangalore. 2. Thefacts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as under. PW.1-Kum. Pasu D., resident of Indabettu village in Belthangadi taluk was a student of B.A. Second year. on 2.1998 while she was returning from the college at about 12.00 noon, she travelled in the bus and after alighting at the bus stop, proceeded to her house by walk. At about 2.15 p.m. while she was near Mundrabettu she found the accused who stopped her, asking her as to whether the Classes were over and when she gave the answer, immediately the accused said to have held her neck and dragged her near the tree and thereafter dragging her to the ground sat on her back and pressed the neck. She cried for help and the accused held her hands and in the meanwhile, as he heard the sound of a vehicle coming on the road, the accused immediately ran away from the spot. Meanwhile, PW.2 while proceeding in the jeep saw the complainant and she informed about this incident to him and thereafter she went to her house and then to Dalitha Sangha and on the next day after going to the college, she informed about the incident and then went to the hospital for treatment accompanied by her brother - PW.5 - Babu. PW.9 - the Head Constable of Belthangady police station, came to the hospital and after enquiry with the complainant recorded the complaint -Ex.P. 1 and returned to the police station. PW. 10 the PSI, registered the said complaint in Crime No.14/98 for the offence punishable u/S 323, 341 and 354 IPC R/W Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Act and sent the complaint -Ex.P.1, and the FIR to the Magistrate. He arrested the accused and entrused the investigation to PW.11 - the Dy. SP on 2.98. PW. 11 went to the spot and held the spot mahazar -Ex.P.3 and seized the broken pieces ofbangles - M.O. 1 and recorded the statement of the witnessess. He arrested the accused and drawn the sketch of the spot -Ex.P.7. He arrested the accused and entrused the investigation to PW.11 - the Dy. SP on 2.98. PW. 11 went to the spot and held the spot mahazar -Ex.P.3 and seized the broken pieces ofbangles - M.O. 1 and recorded the statement of the witnessess. He arrested the accused and drawn the sketch of the spot -Ex.P.7. He secured the Caste Certificate of the complainant and the accused -Ex.P.8 and also the injury certificate. After completion of the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused. During the trial, the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 11 and in their evidence got marked the documents Exs P.1 to P.8 and M.O.1 -broken bangle pieces. The statements of the accused was recorded u/S 313 Cr.P.C. He has taken the defence of total denial and has not lead any defence evidence but got marked the document Ex.D.1 - the remand report. The Trial Court on appreciation of the material on record convicted the accused - appellant for the offence punishable u/S 323, 341 of IPC and also u/S 3(1)(xi) of the Act and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for 7 days for the offence punishable u/S 341 IPC and 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence punishable u/S 3(1)(xi) of the Act and to pay the fine. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence this appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the appellant and also the SPP. The points that arise for my consideration is : (1) Whether the judgment and order of conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable u/S 341, 323 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Act 1989 is illegal and perverse? 4. It is the contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellant that there is no materials on record to prove that the appellant has committed the offence under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Act and it is this further contention that there is a delay of more than 24 hours in lodging the complaint and that the complainant has falsely implicated the appellant for the offence charged. It is also his contention that the evidence is only of the persons interested in the complainant including her relative and that such evidence cannot be acceptable for conviction of the appellant. In the circumstances, he submits to set aside the conviction and to acquit the accused. 5. It is also his contention that the evidence is only of the persons interested in the complainant including her relative and that such evidence cannot be acceptable for conviction of the appellant. In the circumstances, he submits to set aside the conviction and to acquit the accused. 5. The State Public Prosecutor submits that P.W.1 is an eye-witness and he has sustained injuries and the delay in lodging the complaint has been explained both in the complaint and also in her evidence. Therefore, he submits that the delay is not deliberate and there is no false implication. So also, it is his contention that an injured generally does not implicate an innocent and does not leave the person who caused harm. Therefore he submits that the evidence of P.W.1 is material evidence and therefore, the Trial Court was right in convicting the appellant. 6. So far as the contents of Ex.P 1-complaint is concerned, it is relevant to note that while P.W. 1 was returning to her house near Mundrabettu, the accused came and asked her as to why she was coming early and while she was answering, the accused dragged her to tree and after making her to lie down, sat on her back and pressed the neck. Meanwhile, a vehicle came and the accused ran away from the spot. This is what she was stated in her complaint Ex.P.1. If her evidence is looked into, she states that while she was proceeding near Mundrabettu, the accused came and after asking her as to why she has come early, she told him that the two periods of her class were over and then she was about to return to her house. She states further that the accused immediately held her neck dragged her near the tree and made her to lie on the ground and sat on the back and pressed the neck with both the hands. When she was making an effort to cry, he closed her mouth and meanwhile a vehicle came and therefore the accused ran away. So, looking to the evidence of P.W. 1 and the contents of the complaint, I do not think that the provisions under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act are applicable. Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act reads as under: "3. So, looking to the evidence of P.W. 1 and the contents of the complaint, I do not think that the provisions under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act are applicable. Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act reads as under: "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.-(1) whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribes.- (xi) assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty." The perusal of the sub-Section reveals that the assault or use of force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe should be with an intent to dishonouror outrage her modesty and as could be seen from the allegations made in the complaint and the evidence of P.W.1, there is nothing to show that the accused dragged her and also pressed her neck by sitting on the back to cause dishonour or outrage her modesty. In the circumstances, I do not think that the ingredients of this provision are proved from the evidence of the complaint of P.W. 1. In the circumstanses, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is illegal and perverse. 7. So far as the offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC are concerned, it is relevant to note that on the next day P.W.1 went to the hospital with her brother (P.W.5) and after examination, the doctor has issued the injury certificate (Ex.P4), which reveals that she has sustained simple injuries i.e., abrasion on the sides of the neck on the left side 2 in nos. brownish colour and there was pain and tenderness in the right side of the neck and the doctor has certified that these injuries are simple in nature. So, looking to the evidence of P.W.2, her evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence of P.W.4, the doctor who has issued the certificate Ex.P4. In this context, it is submitted by the learned counsel that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and possibility of false implications cannot be overruled. It is no-doubt true that there is a delay of one day in filing the complaint. In this context, it is submitted by the learned counsel that there is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and possibility of false implications cannot be overruled. It is no-doubt true that there is a delay of one day in filing the complaint. But, P.W. 1 states in her complaint that after the incident, she went to her home and therefter went to Dalith Sangha and then to the College and when she was advised that it is necessary to take action for such crimes, then she went to the doctor and submitted the complaint to the Head Constable (P. W.9), who came to the hospital. In view of the fact that the complainant is a girl aged about 18 years at the time of the incidents, I do not think that she had any mala fide intention to implicate the accused. Further it cannot be said that she got self- inflicted injuries and went to the doctor for the purpose of treatment. The evidence reveals that there was some rivalry between P.W 5, who was appointed as post-man and the father of the accused ans that may be the reason for the accused to cause assault on P.W. 1. The existence of motive also corroborates the version of the prosecution and in view of the fact that P.W.1 is an injured witness, her evidence cannot be lightly discarded unless the mala fides are proved on her part. So far as the sustaining of injuries are concerned, the evidence of P.W 1 and the doctor is sufficient and further more P.W.5 i.e., the brother of the complainant also states having seen the injuries sustained by P.W 1 when she returned to the house and also P.W.3 has seen the injuries sustained by P.W. 1. So, taking into consideration this much of evidence, I am of the opinion that so far as the offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC are concerned, there is ample material on record to award the conviction. 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.11) went to the spot and held spot mahazar in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 7 and seized M.O.1-bangle pieces found at the spot. This circumstance also supports the version of the prosecution. 8. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (P.W.11) went to the spot and held spot mahazar in the presence of P.Ws.3 and 7 and seized M.O.1-bangle pieces found at the spot. This circumstance also supports the version of the prosecution. Though P.W.2 has turned hostile and the evidence of P. W.6 is hearsay, the evidence of the above said witness is sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution has examined P.W.8, who carried the first information report and P. W.9 is the Head Constable, who recorded the complaint and P.Ws.10 and 11 are the Investigating Officers. They produced caste certificates (Ex.P8) to prove the caste of the complainant and the accused. In view of the fact that there is no material as regards causing of the assault or use force with an intention to cause dishonour or outrage the modesty of the complainant, the certificate produced by the prosecution is of no help. In the circumstances, the appellant has to be acquitted for the charge under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and his conviction for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC has to be confirmed. 9. So far as the sentence is concerned, it is submitted that the learned Counsel for the appellant that by enhancing the fine amount, the sentence of imprisonment for the offence under. Section 341 IPC may be waived. Taking into consideration the fact that there was an existing rivalry between the parties and that P.W. 1 has sustained simple injuries, I think it would be just and proper to award fine for both the offences under Sections 323-and 341 IPC. To this extent, the sentence for these offences has to be reduced. In the circumstances, I answer the point partly in affirmative and partly in negative and proceed to pass the following: Order The appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is acquitted of the charge for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act. His conviction for the offence under Sections 323 and 341 IPC is confirmed and modifying the sentence he is ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000-00 for each of the offences, within a period of two months from this date, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months (one month for each of the offences).