JUDGMENT : Appellanthas preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and order of sentencepassed by Special Judge, Raisen , in Special Case No.35/2000, decided on 16.4.02. 2.Appellant has been convicted under Section 3(1 )(x) of Schedule Castes and ScheduleTribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’)and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.200/-, indefault imprisonment for fifteen days, by the impugned judgment. 3.According to prosecution, on 22.3.2000 about 7 o’clock in the morning atvillage Kokalpur , when complainant Haribai , a member of Scheduled Caste had gone to the publictap to fill water, appellant Gyarsa and co-accused Laxman came there, threw her vessel by kicking it and alsocaught hold of her hair, threw her, abused her and said "...Hindi....".Complainant Hari Bai thencame to her house, narrated the incident to herhusband and lodged the FIR at Police Station Begamganj .On the basis of her report, an offence was registered against the appellant andthe co-accused and was investigated. Complainant Haribai was sent for medical examination. After due investigation, appellant andco-accused Laxman were prosecuted under Sections 294,323 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and were put to trial before theSpecial Judge, Raisen . 4.Appellant and co-accused abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. 5.The offence under Sections 294 and 323 of IPC were compounded between theparties during trial. However, learned Special Judge, after trial and uponappreciation of the evidence adduced in the case, acquitted co-accused Laxman of the charge under Section 3(1 )( x)of the Act, but found the appellant guilty for commission of offence underSection 3(1)(x) of the Act, by the impugned judgment which has been challengedin this appeal. 6.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trial Court erroneouslyconvicted the appellant on the basis of inconsistent and contradictory evidenceand failed to see that there was no evidence that the appellant humiliated thecomplainant as a member of Scheduled Caste or intentionally insulted or intimidated her on the ground of caste. He further submittedthat the conclusion arrived at by the learned special judge is based onconjecture and surmises. 7.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported theconviction of the appellant. 8.Perused the evidence on record. He further submittedthat the conclusion arrived at by the learned special judge is based onconjecture and surmises. 7.Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, justified and supported theconviction of the appellant. 8.Perused the evidence on record. Complainant Haribai (P.W-1) deposed in her evidence that when she had gone to the public tap forfilling the water, co-accused Laxman threw her vesseland caught hold of her hair and also threw her on the mud; thereupon appellanthad said “....Hindi...”. Then Sukhlal and Shivraj came to her rescue. According to P.W-1 Haribai , she had gone to lodge the report. P.W-2 Meva Bai the daughter ofcomplainant, however, nowhere stated in her evidence that appellant Gyarsa uttured any such words like " ....Hindi....-- She simply said that there was an incident of marpeet between her mother and the appellant and co-accusedon the public tap. P.W-4 Udairam , the husband ofcomplainant also tried to depose that appellant Gyarsa had said ".... Hindi... -- ” but candidly admitted inhis cross-examination that incident was narrated to him by his wife.Complainant Haribai (P. W- 1 ) also admitted in cross-examination that her husband was at home at the time ofincident and she had narrated the incident to her husband’ at her house. Thus,P.W-4 Udairam was not present on the scene ofoccurrence and did not witness the occurrence, therefore, his evidence as against the appellant that he uttered the aforesaidwords cannot be accepted. According to P.W-3 Sukhlal ,both appellant and the other co-accused had said "...Hindi....". P.W-5 Shivraj , on the other hand, had not reproduced the samewords, but said that the appellant had abused as "...Hindi....". 9.Thus, it is apparent that there is inconsistency and discrepancy in theevidence of witnesses as to the actual utterance of the words by the appellant.It has also come in the evidence on record that there was some previous enmitybetween the complainant and the appellant. Therefore, the possibility ofexaggeration in the evidence given against the appellant cannot be ruled out.Moreover, there is no such specific averment in the evidence of complainant Haribai (P.W-1) and the other witnesses that appellant haduttered the words "....Hindi ...’ with intent to humiliate her as a member ofScheduled Caste. It is also no where reflected that the incident occurred onaccount of caste of complainant Haribai , rather itappears that there was some dispute over filling of water. It is also no where reflected that the incident occurred onaccount of caste of complainant Haribai , rather itappears that there was some dispute over filling of water. 10.In absence of specific and explicit evidence that the appellant uttered oraddressed the caste of complainant Haribai with intentto humiliate her or insult her as a member of Scheduled Caste, his convictionunder Section 3(1 )( x) of the Act, on the basis ofinconsistent and discrepant evidence as discussed above, cannot be safelymaintained. Appellant is certainly entitled to benefit of doubt. 11.Appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellant and sentenceawarded to him under Section 3(1 )( x) of the Act arehereby set aside. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.