JUDGMENT: ALOK K. SINGH, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 05.02.2003, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.) Act, Court No. 8, Sultanpur in S.T. No. 66 of 1996, convicting the appellants under Section 3 (1) (X) SC/ST Act and sentencing them with an imprisonment of six months R.I. each. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that; on 07.05.1993 while the complainant was going to paint soil on her Kachcha house towards south, all the four accused persons, who belong to non SC/ST community started abusing her saying Dhobin. She lodged the report on the next day at 5:00 P.M. whereupon, a case was registered and after investigation, charge sheet was filed. All the four convict/appellants were charged under Section 3 (1) (X) SC/ST Act which they denied and claimed trial. The prosecution examined only the complainant in support of the prosecution case. 4. The statements of all the convicts/appellants were recorded. They did not adduce any defence. 5. Learned court below, after making assessment of the oral evidence, recorded the finding of conviction in the aforesaid manner. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the convicts/appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the lower court record. 7. At the outset, it is worthwhile to mention that there is no specific evidence to show that the complainant was abused by caste in public view. In this case there is sole testimony of the complainant. In her statement she has only deposed that the convicts/appellants called her Dhobin and also abused her. But the specific abuse has not been mentioned. Moreover in the entire evidence, it is not mentioned that it was done in public view. Though two more witnesses are mentioned but it is said that out of them one has died and the other went away and therefore no one was produced to support his sole testimony. It is also not ascertainable as to why suddenly all the appellants/convicts started abusing her by caste. The lady said that there was some previous enmity but she has not elaborated as to what sort of previous enmity was between her and the convicts/appellants. 8. It is also not ascertainable as to why suddenly all the appellants/convicts started abusing her by caste. The lady said that there was some previous enmity but she has not elaborated as to what sort of previous enmity was between her and the convicts/appellants. 8. From the side of the defence, it has been suggested that this report was lodged to implicate the convicts/appellants at the instance of local M.L.A. Ram Sewak who also happens to be Dhobi by caste and was related to the complainant. This suggestion has been denied but the factum of relationship with the M.L.A. has been admitted. Therefore, a reasonable doubt is created that the convicts have been probably implicated falsely as has been suggested by the defence. This point also finds support from the fact that both alleged eye witnesses could not be produced. Another factor on the basis of which reasonable doubt is created regarding false implication is the belated F.I.R. for which there does not appear to be any plausible explanation. 9. Concededly, the lady lives only with a child. The rest of the family members live outside. The sole uncontroverted testimony of the complainant does not inspire confidence to justify the conviction of the appellants. 10. In the judgment, it is mentioned that the factual proof has been dispensed with and on that basis the relevant prosecution documents i.e. F.I.R. and charge sheet have been exhibited. But there does not appear to be any dispensation of formal proof by the learned counsel for the defence. It appears that the learned trial court has concluded the trial in a slipshod manner. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence is set aside. 11. A certified copy of this judgment along with the lower court record be remitted back to the court below immediately through the Registrar of this Court for necessary compliance.