Judgment ( 1. ) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentence passed by Special Judge, raisen in Special Case No. 354/96, decided on 30. 3. 98. ( 2. ) APPELLANT has been convicted under Section 3 (1) (x)of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as act) and section 323 of IPC and sentenced to simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs. 200/- and sentence of fine of rs. 200/- only for the respective offences, by the impugned judgment. ( 3. ) ACCORDING to prosecution, on 28. 12. 95 about 7 oclock in the morning, when complainant Asharam, a member of Scheduled Caste, was returning home, he found some barbs wire lying on the road which he tried to remove, appellant came there and began abusing him alleging that people take out their tractors and break his fencing. When complainant Asharam asked the appellant not to abuse him, appellant said " pejs pqi jg] Bkdqjksa dh rjg Ckm+h cm+h ewwansa j[krk gs". Thereupon complainant called one Vijay and told him that appellant was abusing him. Appellant then gave him danda blow causing injuries in his neck and cheek, intimated and assaulted him saying that he was Chamar. The FIR of the incident was lodged next day by complainant Asharam at Police station, Gairatganj, District Raisen, on the basis of which 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 3 (1) (x) of the Act and Section 323, 294, 506-B of ipc and was put to trial before Special Judge, Raisen. ( 4. ) APPELLANT abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. According to appellant, complainant Asharam had quarrelled with him and threw a stone at him causing injuries and falsely implicated him. ( 5. ) LEARNED Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 506 Part II of IPC, but found him guilty for commission of the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act and Section 323 of IPC, convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid by the impugned judgment, which has been challenged in this appeal. ( 6. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial court erroneously convicted the appellant on the basis of unreliable evidence of interested and inimical witnesses without any independent corroboration despite delayed FIR and it failed to consider that the complainant had also assaulted the appellant and lodged a false report next day in order to shield himself and falsely implicated the appellant. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported the conviction of the appellant. ( 8. ) PERUSED the evidence on record. Complainant asharam (P. W-1) deposed in his evidence that on the day of occurrence about 7 or 8oclock in the morning, he had gone to his khalihan, then appellant began abusing him and said " pekj ;gkwaz ls V-zsdvj fudkyrs gsa vksj esjs ckxm+ rksm+rs gsa". Thereafter when he was narrating this incident to Vijay, appellant gave him a lathi blow causing injuries in his right mandible and neck and again abused and intimated him addressing as Chamra. Then complainant asharam lodged a report (Ex. P-1) at Police Station, Gairatganj, district Raisen. P. W-2 Harisingh also tried to support the aforesaid version and said that appellant had abused the complainant, called him chamra and assaulted him with lathi. However, the independent witness, namely, Vijay (P. W-5) has not supported the aforesaid version. ( 9. ) COMPLAINANT Asharam (P. W-1) admitted in his cross-examination that appellant Har Prasad had also lodged a report against him. As per evidence of Dr. S. B. Kulkarni (P. W-6), appellant had also sustained some injuries, therefore, delay in loding the FIR (Ex. P-1) assumes importance. It is manifest from the evidence of S. H. O. Hanuman Singh Rajput (P. W-3) that the report of the alleged incident was lodged next day on 29. 12. 95, but no reason for lodging the FIR next day has been assigned by the complainant (P. W.-1 ). On the other hand, complainant Asharam (P. W-1) deposed in his evidence that he had reached the Police Station same day and also lodged the report same day, which indicates that complainant is not making the correct statement, as evidently the FIR (Ex. P-1)was lodged next day. ( 10. ) COMPLAINANT Asharam (P. W-1) and Harisingh (P. W-2) are also inter se closely related witnesses, as admitted by both of them. P-1)was lodged next day. ( 10. ) COMPLAINANT Asharam (P. W-1) and Harisingh (P. W-2) are also inter se closely related witnesses, as admitted by both of them. Therefore, in view of the fact that the independent witness Vijay (P. W-5) has not supported their version and the FIR of the incident was also lodged next day, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant seems to have some substance that the complainant lodged a false and manipulated report against the appellant next day imputing castism. At least such a possibility is not ruled out that complainant made a delayed FIR giving a complexion of castism to the simple incident of marpeet and lodged a delayed report next day. ( 11. ) IN view of the aforesaid facts, particularly the delayed FIR and the fact that the independent witness Vijay (P. W-5) did not support the evidence of complainant Asharam (P. W-1) and his brother Harisingh (P. W-2) that appellant called him Chamra or gave him beating with intent to humiliate him, the statement of Asharam (P. W-1) and Harising (P. W-2) on that count cannot be accepted beyond reasonable doubt. It could not be, therefore, safely deduced from the evidence of complainant Asharam (P. W-1) and Harisingh (P. W.-2) that the appellant insulted or intimated the complainant calling him chamra with intent to humiliate him as a member of Scheduled caste. The conviction of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act cannot, therefore, be safely maitained. Appellant, is, therefore, entitled to benefit of doubt. ( 12. ) HOWEVER, there are no reasons to disbelieve the statement of Asharam (P. W-1) that appellant gave him a lathi blow in view of the medical evidence of Dr. S. B. Kulkarni (P. W-6) available on record. Dr. S. B. Kulkarni (P. W-6) found a swelling on the right angle of the jaw of the complainant and an abrasion on the middle of the right side of neck at anterior boundary of supra clavicular fossa. The conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC, therefore, deserves to be affirmed. ( 13. ) APPEAL is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant and sentence awarded to him under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. The conviction of the appellant under Section 323 of IPC, therefore, deserves to be affirmed. ( 13. ) APPEAL is, therefore, partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant and sentence awarded to him under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the charge. However, the conviction of the appellant under section 323 of IPC and sentence of fine imposed on him are affirmed. ( 14. ) APPEAL is accordingly disposed of.