Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal is directed by the appellants/accused under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12. 8. 97 passed by Special Judge Raisen in Special Case No. 43/96 convicting to each of them for the offence under Section 3 (l) (x) of the SC/st (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Act) with punishment of 6 months SI and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of it, further two months S. L ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this Appeal are that on dated 14. 8. 92 at about 110 clock in the morning, complainant Lachhu and his brother Bhawarlal, were washing clothes on the public Well. At the same time, accused Kaluram and Gudda, whose animals were grazing nearby, came there and abused him saying "chamra" why he is washing the clothes on the Well and also instigated the animals to run-over their clothes. Subsequent to it, at about 12 0 Clock in the noon, when complainant went to hear the Bhagwat Katha at the residence of Bhanwarji Karigar then accused Mangal Singh, Gudda, Nandram and Kaluram lashed with Katama and sticks came there and said the complainant now Chamra Sale you have came to hear the Bhagwatji. In response of it, the complainant asked him that he is also listening the same along with others, on which, Mangal Singh reacted with abuse and caused a blow of stick on his chest. The second blow of stick was caught hold by Jairam Patel. Thereafter, accused Gudda gave a blow of Katarna (a sharp edged weapon ). The same was resisted by Jairam Patel on his stick. At the same time, accused Bhogchand, Khuman, Lakhan and Babbu along "with others also came their and asked to kill the complainant but he was saved by Goverdhan, jairam and Deviram etc. on which, he ran away and took shelter in the house of premnarayan by bolting the doors from inside. Inspite that the accused persons were abusing him continuously. Later, he mentioned the incident to to ullage sarpanch Bhawarlal Sidhar and thereafter lodged the report (Ex. h i ). with police raisen on 20. 8. on which, he ran away and took shelter in the house of premnarayan by bolting the doors from inside. Inspite that the accused persons were abusing him continuously. Later, he mentioned the incident to to ullage sarpanch Bhawarlal Sidhar and thereafter lodged the report (Ex. h i ). with police raisen on 20. 8. 92, on which, the appellants along with accused Bhogchand and nandram were arrested and after investigation, they were charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 294,506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3 (1 ) (x)of the Act. ( 3. ) CONSIDERING the papers of charge-sheet, the charges of Sections 506-B of ipc and Section 3 (l) (x) of the Act were framed against all the accused. They abjured the same, on which, the trial was held. On appreciation of the evidence, the trial court while acquitting accused Bhogchand and Nandram from all the charges and the appellants from the charge of Section 506-B -held them guilty for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act with the above-mentioned punishment. The same is under challenged in this appeal. ( 4. ) SHRI Amanulla Usmani,-learned counsel for the appellants, after taking me through the evidence led by the prosecution and exhibited papers, assailed the impugned judgment saying that the prosecution has failed to prove the caste of the complainant, as alleged chamar, by any reliable and admissible evidence. Although, the certificate in this regard issued by the Tehsildar is produced on record but the same has neither been proved by issuing authority or any of the examined witnesses. Besides this, no other evidence, as per requirement of the law, to prove the caste of complainant, has been placed on record. Mere filing of such certificate with the charge-sheet is not sufficient to draw an inference that complainant was belonging to the caste covered by the Act. By -referring the deposition of the complainant, he said that he himself has not stated that he belongs to such community, he only stated that he was abused by the appellants with the. word of "chamra". He said that in the lack of such evidence, the impugned conviction and sentence are not sustainable. He further argued that as the alleged incident took place on 14. 8. 92 and the F. I. R was lodged on 20. 8. word of "chamra". He said that in the lack of such evidence, the impugned conviction and sentence are not sustainable. He further argued that as the alleged incident took place on 14. 8. 92 and the F. I. R was lodged on 20. 8. 92, round about after six days, the same is not only belated but also an after-thought. The explanation putforth, for lodging the same at later stage is that they were restrained by the appellants to lodge the report, is not reliable, as they had already came into contact with the village Sarpanch. In continuation of it, he said that such explanation could not be considered in the lack of deposition of Sarpanch Bhawarlal, on whose consultation, the F. I. R was lodged. With these submissions, by placing reliance on some reported decisions, he prayed for acquittal of the appellants by allowing this appeal. ( 5. ) ON the other hand, responding the aforesaid arguments, Smt Sushila Paliwal g. A said that taking into consideration the unrebutted testimony of the complainant lachhu, the trial court has rightly held his case to be covered by the Act. She further said that the finding of the impugned judgment do not require any interference at this stage as the same are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and also is in conformity with law. According to her submission, complainant Lachhu was abused by the appellants within the public view with intention to humiliate him on account of his caste covered by the Act. ( 6. ) HAVING heard the counsel at length, I have examined the record of the trial court and also perused the impugned judgment. ( 7. ) IT is settled preposition of the law that the person like appellants could be convicted under the aforesaid provisions of the Act on proving the facts by the prosecution with admissible and reliable evidence that the complainant is belonging to the caste notified and covered under the Act and also the appellants accused are not covered under the Caste notified in the Act. ( 8. ) IN the case at hand, the complainant Lachhu while stating his name as Lachhu chamar lodged the F. I. Ron 20. 8. 1992, just after some days of the alleged incident. It appears that at the time of lodging the report, no certificate of the community was placed by him before the police. ( 8. ) IN the case at hand, the complainant Lachhu while stating his name as Lachhu chamar lodged the F. I. Ron 20. 8. 1992, just after some days of the alleged incident. It appears that at the time of lodging the report, no certificate of the community was placed by him before the police. In Investigation, the spot map (Ex. P/2) was prepared and the appellants along with acquitted accused were arrested vide memo (Ex. P/3) to (Ex. P/11 ). It appears from the record that some caste certificate of the complainant dated 22. 9. 92, stating his caste to be "chamar", obtained from the office of the Tehsildar, is produced on the record but the same has not been proved by examining the issuing authority or by the investigating officer himself. ( 9. ) AS per provision of Section 76 of the Evidence Act such certificate could not be treated to be a public document. In such premises, the prosecution was bound to prove the same as the other documents are proved on record in a criminal case. In the lack of such evidence , such certificate could not be taken into consideration to held the Caste of the complainant covered under the Act. In such premises, the Court has to consider the matter taking into consideration the testimonies of the aforesaid witnesses. ( 10. ) LACHHU (P. W. 2), the complainant, while recording his deposition stated the words of abuses, as alleged, used by the appellants or other accused against him but what is the actual caste, the same has not been stated by him in the entire in-chief. Besides this, he has also not stated anything to show that his caste is covered under the Act. In the lack of such specific statement of the complainant, mere on some words of abuses, it could not be inferred that the complainant was belonging to the caste covered under the Act. ( 11. ) THE same position is of his brother Bhomra (P. W. 3 ). He categorically deposed that he is Harijan but did not disclosed his specific caste of that community which is covered under the Act, In his in-chief he stated the words of abuses, as alleged, spoken by the appellants but not specifically "stated his caste. ( 12. ) THE same position is of his brother Bhomra (P. W. 3 ). He categorically deposed that he is Harijan but did not disclosed his specific caste of that community which is covered under the Act, In his in-chief he stated the words of abuses, as alleged, spoken by the appellants but not specifically "stated his caste. ( 12. ) THE witness Jairam (P. W. I) has also not stated the actual caste of the complainant or his brother. As such, he stated only such words of abuse used by the appellants and nothing else. ( 13. ) THE independent witness Premnarayan (P W. 4) did not state anything with respect of the caste of. the complainant or any offending act of the appellants. Accordingly, the Caste of the complainant has not been proved by ocular evidence available on the record. ( 14. ) CHANDGIRAM (P. W. 5) AST Police, the Investigating Officer of the case, while recording his deposition has neither stated anything with respect of the caste of the complainant nor proved the caste certificate of the victim issued by the tehsildar. The Tehsildar or any official from his office has neither been examined by the prosecution nor any sufficient reasons regarding his non-examination has. been putforth on record. Such non-examination of the material witness gives sufficient circumstance to draw the inference that prosecution has failed to prove that complainant is belonging to the notified community covered by the Act. ( 15. ) MY aforesaid view is fully fortified with the earlier" view of this court taken in the matter of Lalit Kumar and another Vs. State of M. P-2007 (111) MPWN 58) in which it was held as under :- "13. Needless to say, as argued by the learned counsel for the appellants, that Imrat (PW 3) or his brother Badri Prasad (PW 1)did not disclose their actual caste in their evidence. The mere statement that they are Harijan does not denote their actual Caste so as to hold that complainant Badri Prasad (PW 1) is included in the category of the member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe as notified by the Government. No Caste Certificate of the complainant was filed by the prosecution on record. " ( 16. ) APART the above, it is apparent fact on record that the alleged incident took place on 14. 8. No Caste Certificate of the complainant was filed by the prosecution on record. " ( 16. ) APART the above, it is apparent fact on record that the alleged incident took place on 14. 8. 92 and the F. I. R was lodged by Lachhu 20. 8. 92. It appears from the F. LR that immediately after the incident, the aforesaid complainant came into contact with the Sarpanch and watchman of the village inspite that the F. I. R was not lodged immediately on the same day. So, the explanation mentioned in the f. I. R that under fear of appellant, complainant could not lodge the report does not appear to be reliable. It is settled proposition of law that if the F. I. R is lodged at very belated stage without giving proper explanation then it being suspicious could not be made basis for holding conviction against the accused. Such principle is laid by the Apex Court long back in the matter of Thulia Kali Vs. State of T. N.- AIR 1973 SC 501 in which the F. I. R was lodged after 20 hours and in such circumstance the benefit was extended to the accused. In the available circumstances, I have found sufficient circumstances to extend such benefit of suspicion to the appellants. ( 17. ) IN the aforesaid premises, by allowing this Appeal, the aforesaid conviction and sentence of the Appellants are hereby set aside and they are acquitted from the alleged charges. Their bail bonds are hereby cancelled. The amount of fine, if deposited, be refunded to the appellants after due verification. ( 18. ) THE Appeal is allowed as indicated above. . Appeal allowed.