Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANTS have preferred this appeal challenging their conviction and order of sentence passed by Special judge, Sehore in Special Case No. 151/93, decided on 29. 6. 94. ( 2. ) APPELLANTS have been convicted under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as act) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 500/- each by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 17. 7. 93 in the evening at village Gaukhedi, when complainant Dhansingh, a member of scheduled caste was sitting on the platform of hanuman Temple, alongwith Narayan Singh, appellants bhairon Maharaj, Narayan Singh and Ramsingh came there, began beating him, kicked him and fell him down from the platform saying that they would not permit the persons of chamar caste to sit on the temple or fill water from the hand pump. When complainant Dhansingh proceeded to lodge the report of the incident, appellants armed with lathi and weapons interrupted him and did not allow to go to the Police station. Appellants intimidated the complainant and said that if he reported the matter, he would be killed. A typed report of the incident was then sent to the Superintendent of police, Sehore by the complainant, whereupon after preliminary enquiry, an offence was registered against the appellants at Police Station, Javar and was investigated. After due investigation appellants were prosecuted under section 294, 341, 506 of IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and were put to trial before the Special Court, Sehore. ( 4. ) APPELLANTS denied the charges framed against them under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and pleaded false implication due to money dispute. ( 5. ) LEARNED Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, found the appellants guilty for commission of the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellants on the basis of inconsistent, unreliable and infirm evidence without any independent corroboration, despite delayed FIR and it failed to consider that the appellants were falsely implicated due to money dispute with the complainant party. ( 7. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellants on the basis of inconsistent, unreliable and infirm evidence without any independent corroboration, despite delayed FIR and it failed to consider that the appellants were falsely implicated due to money dispute with the complainant party. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellants. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. ( 9. ) COMPLAINANT Dhansingh (P. W-1) deposed in his evidence that on the day of occurrence about 6-7 oclock in the evening, when he was sitting at Hanuman Temple and offering the incense stick, appellants came there, abused him and said "xxxxx" and beat him by kicks and fists. According to complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1), appellants also prevented him from filling the water from hand pump saying that he was xxxxx and also prevented him from lodging the report and threatened him. Complainant somehow lodged the written report (Ex. P-1) at Sehore Police Station. ( 10. ) COMPLAINANTs cousin Narayan Singh (P. W-2) also tried to support the aforesaid version, but there are sheer contradictions in the testimony of complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1) and Narayan Singh (P. W-2 ). Even the evidence of dhansingh (P. W-1) itself suffers from several inconsistencies and infirmities. ( 11. ) FIRST of all, complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1) never specifically stated in his examination-in-chief that appellants prevented him or objected to his sitting at the temple because of his caste or abused him by naming his caste; however, in cross-examination he attributed number of such abuses to the appellants and said that the appellants had addressed him as xxxxx though there is a clear omission of all these words in his written report (Ex. P-1), which indicates, that complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1) has tried to improve and exaggerate his version. ( 12. ) COMPLAINANT Dhansingh (P. W-1) also stated in his evidence that the appellants had prevented him from filling the water, though in his written report there were no such allegations against the appellants that they actually prevented him from filling water, but it was simply mentioned that the appellants had alarmed him not to fill the water. ( 12. ) COMPLAINANT Dhansingh (P. W-1) also stated in his evidence that the appellants had prevented him from filling the water, though in his written report there were no such allegations against the appellants that they actually prevented him from filling water, but it was simply mentioned that the appellants had alarmed him not to fill the water. There is also sheer inconsistency in his evidence in this regard in para 14 and 15 of his deposition where he also appears to be uncertain whether the incident of preventing him from filling water from the hand pump or sitting at the temple took place first. ( 13. ) THE written and typed report (Ex. P-1) addressed to the Police Superintendent was also evidently sent by the complainant after two days, the typed report (Ex. P-1) itself is dated 19. 7. 93. The reasons assigned for delayed report are also inconsistent and varying from the reasons mentioned in the report (Ex. P-1) itself. As per written report (Ex. P-1)made by complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1), appellants being armed with lathi and arms, had prevented him from going to the Police Station and intimidated him, whereas he denied the same in his evidence that appellants were armed at the time of preventing him from going to the Police Station. He also made inconsistent statement in this behalf in para 12 of his deposition and said that due to flood in the river, he could not go to the Police Station to lodge the report, though such a reason was never mentioned in the written report (Ex. P-1 ). ( 14. ) P. W-2 Narayan Singh also gave much more exaggerated version stating that appellants had abused him and his brother Dhansingh (P. W-1), objected to his sitting on "xxxxx" the platform of Hanuman temple and said "xxxxx", imputing castism to the appellants, whereas complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1) never made such a statement. There are also material contradictions in the testimony of complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1) and his cousin narayan Singh (P. W-2), while they claim to be sitting together on the platform of Hanuman Temple at the time of occurrence. There are also material contradictions in the testimony of complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1) and his cousin narayan Singh (P. W-2), while they claim to be sitting together on the platform of Hanuman Temple at the time of occurrence. According to Dhansingh (P. W-1), he had offered incense stick in the temple at the time of incident, whereas according to Narayan Singh (P. W-2), they never went inside the temple and none of them had put any incense stick in the temple. P. W-2 Narayan Singh does not speak of any incident of preventing from filling water, as alleged by complainant dhansingh (P. W-1), and he clearly admitted in his cross-examination that Dhansingh (P. W-1) never told him such thing like preventing him from filling water from the hand pump. According to P. W-1 Dhansingh, appellants had prevented him from proceeding to lodge the report on the day of occurrence itself, whereas Narayan Singh (P. W-2)deposed that the appellants had not prevented them from lodging the report on the day of occurrence. Such contradictions cast a cloud of suspicion on their testimony and its veracity. ( 15. ) BOTH Dhansingh (P. W-1) and Narayan Singh (P. W-2) also admitted in their cross-examination that they had entered into some money transaction with appellant bhairon Maharaj. Complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1) further admitted that an amount of Rs. 1,000/- was also due to be paid by him to appellant Bhairon Maharaj. There was also a suggestion in their cross-examination that they wanted to avoid the payment of money due against them and therefore, falsely implicated the appellants, though the same was denied. Be that as it may, some money dispute appears to be there. ( 16. ) MOREOVER, though P. W-3 Harnath deposed that he had seen the appellants slapping Dhansingh (P. W-1) and narayan Singh (P. W-2) on the platform of Hanuman temple, but he never said that appellants abused them or named them by caste or objected to their sitting in the temple on account of their being member of Scheduled Caste. In an incident of such type, where the castism is imputed and the offence essentially depends upon the use of such words and language indicating castism, the similarity and consistency in the actual words alleged to have been used by the offender is necessary to ascertain the truth of the matter. In an incident of such type, where the castism is imputed and the offence essentially depends upon the use of such words and language indicating castism, the similarity and consistency in the actual words alleged to have been used by the offender is necessary to ascertain the truth of the matter. It also appears quite unnatural that all the three appellants will utter the same words and same abuses at the same time. There is also no medical evidence on record to support the incident of marpeet allegedly committed by the appellants. ( 17. ) IN view of aforesaid, particularly the delayed FIR, without there being any convincing and satisfactory reason for the delay, inconsistency and material contradictions in the evidence of complainant Dhansingh (P. W-1) and Narayan singh (P. W-2), their evidence is not found to be dependable and reliable so as to be accepted against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The possibility of false implication of the appellants due to money dispute between appellants and complainant party cannot also be ruled out. Thus, it would not be safe to conclude on the basis of such infirm and contradictory evidence that appellants insulted or intimidated the complainant by abusing or naming him by caste or prevented him from sitting on the temple on the ground of caste with intent to humiliate him as a member of scheduled Caste. ( 18. ) IN the wake of aforesaid, the conviction of the appellants under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside. ( 19. ) APPEAL is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and sentence passed on them are hereby set aside. Appellants are acquitted of the charge. ( 20. ) APPELLANTS are on bail. There bail bonds shall stand discharged.