JUDGMENT 1. Appellants have filed this appeal against the judgment dated 2.7.1996 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Jabalpur in Special Case No. 63/1995, convicting them under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter for short 'the Act') and sentenced them to pay fine of Rs.500/- and rigorous imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000/- on each count respectively. 2. In short, the prosecution case is that on 28.11.1995 at about 8 a.m., when complainant Pyarelal was going on the public way, appellants confronted and after abusing him assaulted by fists, kicks and lathis. As a result of which, he suffered injuries. It is also said that they called him 'Chamra' with a view to intentionally insult and humiliate him because of his being a member of Scheduled Caste. 3. Pyarelal (PW 1) lodged a report Ex. P/l at police Station AJK, Jabalpur. Police registered a case against the appellants under sections 341,294, 506-B and 323/34 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. Investigating Officer sent Pyarelal for medical examination to Victoriya Hospital, Jabalpur. Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW 3) and Dr. A.K. Agrawal, (PW 4) examined him and found simple injury on his left eye. 4. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special court for trial. 5. Appellants pleaded false implication. As appeared from the suggestions put by the appellants in the cross examination of prosecution witnessess, it appears that they were implicated because of a quarrel on non-payment of money advanced by them to complainant Pyarelal. 6. during trial prosecution examined Pyarelal (PW 1), Baliram (PW 2) and Chetram (PW 5) as eye witnesses of the occurrance. Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW 3) and Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW 4) were examined to prove injury found on the body of complainant. L.P. Mishra (PW 6), Station Officer of AJK. Police Station proved the investigation. Appellants also examined Sharda Prasad (DW 1) and Mohan (DW 2) in their defence. 7. Learned Special Judge, upon trial after appreciation of the evidence held the appellants guilty for the charge under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. 8. Police Station proved the investigation. Appellants also examined Sharda Prasad (DW 1) and Mohan (DW 2) in their defence. 7. Learned Special Judge, upon trial after appreciation of the evidence held the appellants guilty for the charge under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that from the evidence of complainant and other eye witnesses, it is not established that appellants assaulted the complainant with a view to humiliate or insult him with intent to because of his being a member of Scheduled Caste. Complainant himself admitted that he was generally called as 'Chamar' because he belonged to that caste. Counsel further submitted that the injury found on the body of complainant could have been caused by a fall. According to him, appellants were falsely implicated because they did not want to return the money borrowed by them for treatment of their mother. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution was trustworthy and the finding of conviction of appellants recorded by the trial Court was fully justified. 9. I have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence on record. 10. Complainant Pyarelal (PW 1) deposed that while he was returning after answering the call of nature, appellant Rammu caught hold of him and Barelal and Vishnu dealt lathi blows to him, due to which, he fell down. Thereafter, all of them assaulted him and hurled abuses. They also extended threats to kill him saying 'Chamar Tere Ko Mar Dalenge'. He went to police station and lodged the report Ex. P/1. The incident was witnessed by Bali, Chetram and some other persons. 11. In cross examination, he denied the suggestion that he borrowed money from the appellant Rammu for treatment of fracture of the leg of his mother. However, from the evidence, it appears that there was some dispute of account with respect to transaction of money between him and the appellants. According to him, the diary of account which was kept by the appellants was torn. He used to mould bricks for the appellants. He admitted that about the dispute of money, he had lodged the report against the appellant Rammu in the past. This witness categorically stated that the quarrel between him and the appellants was initiated by an altercation with Rammu. He used to mould bricks for the appellants. He admitted that about the dispute of money, he had lodged the report against the appellant Rammu in the past. This witness categorically stated that the quarrel between him and the appellants was initiated by an altercation with Rammu. Rammu inflicted a lathi blow to him, due to which, he fell down. Thereafter, other appellants assaulted him, but there was no talks with them. He further admitted that his full name was of 'Pyarelal Chamar'. He wrote his name as 'Chamar' because he belonged to that caste. People used to call him by that name. He did not fell bad by their calling in that manner. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since there have been a quarrel for some other reason and in the course of quarrel if appellants simply uttered the name of complainant calling him 'Chamar', it cannot be said that they did so with intent to insult or humiliate him because of his being a member of Scheduled Caste. He also placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in Jasrath Singh and another v. State of M.P., 2005 (4) MPLJ 363 . 13. The evidence of complainant about the assault made on him stands corroborated by the evidence of Baliram (PW 2) and Chetram (PW 5). Baliram (PW 2) deposed that appellants caught hold of Pyarelal and assaulted him by fists and kicks. They also abused him. This witness. however, did not say that appellants uttered word 'Chamar' to him. As far as Chetram (PW 5) is concerned. he stated that appellants assaulted Pyarelal, abused him and also told 'Chamar Neech Bahut Badh Gaya Hai' . 14. In cross examination, this witness admitted that he was nephew of Pyarelal and he also used to write word 'Chamar' in his name. He felt no fear in saying that he was a 'Chamar' because he belogned to that caste. He stated that he did not know as to why the quarrel between the complainant and the appellants took place. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of this witness is inconsistent with the evidence of complainant Pyarelal (PW 1) because the fact that the appellants said that 'Chamar Neech Bahut Badh Gaya Hai' was not stated by the complainant himself. 16. 15. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence of this witness is inconsistent with the evidence of complainant Pyarelal (PW 1) because the fact that the appellants said that 'Chamar Neech Bahut Badh Gaya Hai' was not stated by the complainant himself. 16. On a careful appraisal of the evidence of complainant and the aforesaid witnesses, it appears that the appellants merely uttered word 'Chamar' while they indulged in assaulting the complainant. The evidence of Chetram (PW 5) appears suffering with some what exaggeration. According to appellants, there have been some dispute about returning of money from the complainant which was borrowed by him. Sharda Prasad (DW 1) deposed that the mother of Pyarelal had suffered a fracture by a fall. Pyarelal had borrowed Rs.2.600/- from the appellant Rammu saying that he would adjust the same by moulding blicks for him. Since, neither the said money returned by the complainant nor the bricks were moulded for him, the quarrel occurred between them. In these circumstances. it seems that the appellants did not assault or abuse by uttering word 'Chamra' with intent to humiliate, intimidate or insult the complainant of his being a member of Scheduled Caste. In Jasrath Singh (supra), this court observed that by merely calling a person from the caste name without proof of any intention of insulting or humiliating, no offence under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is constituted. 17. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the learned Special Judge committed error in holding the appellants guilty of the charge under section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. 18. As far as the conviction of appellants under section 323 of the ,Indian Penal Code is concerned, from the evidence of complainant Pyarelal (PW 1) and other prosecution witnesses, it is clearly established that the appellants assaulted Pyarelal (PW 1). The evidence of eye witness Baliram (PW 2) finds corroboration from the evidence of Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW 3) and Dr. A..K. Agrawal (PW 4), Dr. Vinod Kumar (PW 3) stated that on examination of Pyarelal (PW 1) on 28.11.1995, he found the left eye of Pyarelal red. He referred him to specialist for full treatment and a detailed report. His report is Ex. P/3. Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW 4) deposed that there have been a blood in the membrane of left eye of Pyarelal. Vinod Kumar (PW 3) stated that on examination of Pyarelal (PW 1) on 28.11.1995, he found the left eye of Pyarelal red. He referred him to specialist for full treatment and a detailed report. His report is Ex. P/3. Dr. A.K. Agrawal (PW 4) deposed that there have been a blood in the membrane of left eye of Pyarelal. It was a simple injury. Thus, it is clearly established that appellants caused simple hurt to complainant Pyarelal. As such, I find no infirmity in the finding of conviction of appellants under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the Court below. 19. In view of the above discussion, the conviction and sentence of the appellants under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is set aside. Their conviction under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of fine as awarded by the trial Court is affirmed. Appellants are acquitted of the charge under section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. 20. Appeal partly allowed. Sunil Jain for appellants; Pramodh Chaurasiya, Panel Lawyer for respondent/State.