Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has challenged his conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge, Chhatarpur in Special Case no. 46/92, decided on 10. 8. 94. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 3 (1) (x)of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 2. 2. 92 about 5 oclock in the evening at village Gudara, when complainant Bhagirath, a member of Scheduled Caste, was returning from the market on his bicycle, appellant intercepted and abused him near the field of Govind Dheemar and asked him to get down from the cycle saying " lkys pekj mrj tk gekjs lkeus lkbfdy ls pyrk gs A". When complainant Bhagirath told him that he had to reach home early due to some work, appellant again abused him and tried to beat him by shoes and gave beating by slaps and fists causing injury on his right ear. Complainant Bhagirath went home weeping and narrated the whole incident to his father. Next day he went to the Police Station alongwith his father and lodged the FIR. On the basis of his report, an offence was registered against the appellant and was investigated. Injured complainant was sent for medical examination. After due investigation, appellant was prosecuted under Section 323, 294 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and was put to trial. ( 4. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication due to enmity. ( 5. ) DURING trial, the offence under Section 323 of IPC was compounded between the parties. However, appellant came to be tried for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. ( 6. ) LEARNED Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellant guilty for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant without there being any cogent evidence that the appellant intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant, a member of Scheduled caste with intent to humiliate him. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant without there being any cogent evidence that the appellant intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant, a member of Scheduled caste with intent to humiliate him. He further submitted that the trial court failed to consider that there was delay in loding the FIR and on account of simple hurt sustained by him, complainant lodged a false and exaggerated report next day imputing castism after consultation with some village people. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 9. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. ( 10. ) COMPLAINANT Bhagirath (P. W-1) is the sole witness to the alleged incident. According to Bhagirath (P. W-1), in the month of Feb. 1992, when he was returning home from maharajpur Market, appellant met him near the field of Govind dheemar. As his cycle had punctured, appellant was walking on foot. On seeing the complainant on bicycle , appellant told him. . . (Other Language Omited ). . . When complainant told him that the place did not belong to him and in future he would take care to get down, appellant began beating him with kicks and fists and pulled his ears causing injury on his right ear. Complainant then went to the police station and lodged the FIR (Ex. P-1 ). ( 11. ) COMPLAINANT Bhagirath (P. W-1), however, admitted in his cross-examination that no one came to his rescue at the time of incident. He also asserted that he lodged the report same evening, but the evidence of ASI M. S. Bhadoriya (P. W-4), who recorded the FIR, reveals that the FIR (Ex. P-1) was lodged next day. Complainant Bhagirath (P. W-1) also tried to say that as he belonged to lower Caste and the appellant belonged to bramhin Caste, appellant had uttured bad words to him, but the same was not mentioned in the FIR (Ex. P-1), which indicates that complainant Bhagirath (P. W-1) was trying to improve his statement so as to impute castism to the appellant. ( 12. P-1), which indicates that complainant Bhagirath (P. W-1) was trying to improve his statement so as to impute castism to the appellant. ( 12. ) COMPLAINANTs father Lachhua (P. W-2) also simply said that when his son Bhagirath was returning from Maharajpur, appellant had beaten him by kicks and fists and pulled his ear, but he never said that his son told him or complained to him that appellant had addressed his son as chamra or asked him to get down from the cycle on account of being chamar by Caste, which also cast a shadow of doubt on the statement made by complainant Bhagirath (P. W-1) that appellant addressed him as chamra and asked him to get down from the cycle on the ground of his being low caste. Had it been true, complainant bhagirath (P. W-1), who was a young lad of seventeen years of age, would have naturally told the whole thing to his father and complained to him that appellant had altercated and beaten him on account of his caste and addressed him as chamra. ( 13. ) THUS, the solitary evidence of complainant Bhagirath (P. W-1) suffers from exaggeration and infirmities and is not aboveboard so as to be relied upon beyond all reasonable doubts. The FIR of the incident was also lodged next day, though the place of incident, as is apparent from the FIR (Ex. P-1), was only six kilometers away from the Police Station. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant seems to have some force that on account of some simple injury, as found by Dr. R. K. Shama (P. W-3) on the person of complainant Bhagirath, he, after consultation, lodged a report giving complexion of castism to the simple incident of marpit. Of course, such a possibility could not be ruled out, particularly when the cycle of the appellant had punctured and complainant was riding on his bicycle, which might have led to the incident of marpit. There has been also a suggestion in the cross-examination of complainant Bhagirath (P. W-1) that he had lodged a false report at the instance of Ratan Singh and Bhujbal singh, who were on inimical terms with the appellant. ( 14. There has been also a suggestion in the cross-examination of complainant Bhagirath (P. W-1) that he had lodged a false report at the instance of Ratan Singh and Bhujbal singh, who were on inimical terms with the appellant. ( 14. ) IN the aforesaid circumstances, it would not be safe to conclude on the basis of sole testimony of complainant bhagirath (P. W-1) that appellant addressed him as chamra and objected to his riding on cycle on account of his being chamar by caste or insulted or intimidated him with intent to humiliate him as a member of scheduled caste. Thus, no case under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act was proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Appellant is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 15. ) APPEAL is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of SC/st Act and the sentence passed on him are hereby set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charge. ( 16. ) APPELLANT is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.