JUDGMENT This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 28-10-1999 passed by the Special Judge, Nanded in Special Case No.12/1996. thereby convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and appellants are sentenced to suffer S.I. for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, each of the appellant has to suffer further SI for one month. 2. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as under : Admittedly, all the nine accused persons are not the members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. Complainant Venkati, PW2/Nagorao, PW-3/Muktabai, PW-4/Pandurang, PW-5/Govind, PW-6/Gangabai, PW -7/ Dhondyabai, belong to scheduled caste. Undisputedly, on 30-04-1992 the village celebrated Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti at village Khatgaon. A procession was arranged on the eve of Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti. The prosecution reached in front of Grampanchayat Office. Some of the boys belonging to scheduled caste were playing Lezim in the procession. According to the prosecution, accused Sripta, Parbat, Manika and Ananda tried to bring obstruction in the procession. However, the procession proceeded further and the function was over peacefully. 3. The prosecution has further alleged that, Manika and other persons belonging to scheduled caste celebrated Dr. Ambedkar Jayanti and, therefore, the villagers who are not belonging to scheduled caste called a meeting on 1-5-92 on the platform of Maroti temple in the evening and they decided to observe boycott on the persons belonging to scheduled caste and denied access to them to the public water stand, shops, flour mill etc., According to the prosecution, the accused have decided not to sell grocery articles to the persons belonging to scheduled caste. They also did not allow the women and children belonging to scheduled caste to go to answer clal of nature and they did not allow them to the flour mill etc. 4. Prosecution story further goes to state that due to fear, on the very night on 1-5-92 the persons belonging to scheduled caste left the village Khatgaon. On the next day i.e. on 2-5-92 complainant Venkatil PW-1 lodged the complaint Exh.33 in the police station Mukhed before PW-9 Bhagwan Thorat PSI. PW -9 Bhagwan registered the offence and further investigation was carried out by PSI PW-10 Suryawanshi. On the next day i.e. on 2-5-92 complainant Venkatil PW-1 lodged the complaint Exh.33 in the police station Mukhed before PW-9 Bhagwan Thorat PSI. PW -9 Bhagwan registered the offence and further investigation was carried out by PSI PW-10 Suryawanshi. Undisputedly, on 30-492 PW-8 Narsing Police Head Constable had gone to village Khatgaon for Bandobast duty, as the procession was arranged on account of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti. PSI Suryawanshi went to village Khatgaon and prepared a scene of offence panchanama Exh.34. He recorded statement of Venkati, Govind, Muktabai, Pandurang, Gangabai, Dondyabai and others on 3-5-92. The statements of some of the witnesses were recorded on 6-5-92. After having completed the investigation, he submitted charge-sheet in the Court of J.M.F.C., Mukhed. 5. It appears from the record that JMFC, Mukhed was pleased to commit this case to the Court of Sessions as the offences registered against the accused persons are exclusively triable by the Special Court. 6. After having considered police statements, learned Special Judge was pleased to frame charges vide Exh.15 under Section 3(1)(xiv) of S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 4(i) & (iv) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act against all the accused. The charges were read over and explained to them in vernacular. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of total denial. They have denied that, the meeting was held in the village and they had decided to observe boycott on the persons of the scheduled caste. According to them they did not deny the access to persons of scheduled caste namely, Venkat and others to the public water stand, shops, flour mill, etc., According to them a false complaint was lodged by Venkati in order to extract money from the accused persons. 7. The Special Court at Nanded after appreciating the rival submissions framed as many as three points for his determination and held that the appellants herein who are original accused Nos.6 ad 8 are found guilty under Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Rest of the accused who were tried are acquitted. Hence this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Special Court in Special Case No. 12/1996 on 28-10-1999. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that the prosecution examined as many as ten witness. Rest of the accused who were tried are acquitted. Hence this appeal challenging the judgment and order passed by the Special Court in Special Case No. 12/1996 on 28-10-1999. 8. The learned Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that the prosecution examined as many as ten witness. however, no single witness is able to explain about their customary rites and how said rites are violated by the appellants. It is further submitted that, the Special Court is not correct in placing reliance on the evidence of Govind. It is further submitted that, the allegations against the appellants/accused that, they have refused to give grocery to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe persons is not correct, since no accused is having grocery shop in the village, Khategaon. It is further submitted that, the prosecution has not proved that, access to public places was denied to the complainant and prosecution witnesses on the ground of unteachability. The counsel further invited my attention to the evidence of police head constable who was on duty on 30th April. 1992 at village Khategaon and submitted that. said witness has stated that the complainant Vithal told him that there is no grievance against anybody. The counsel further submitted that, there was no any obstruction to the procession and said was completed peacefully and without obstruction. However, the complainant is leader of Republican Party of India (RPI) and he is taking undue advantage of his political position and harassing the villagers and more particularly the accused persons. It is further submitted that, as per prosecution story the alleged incident has taken place on 01st May, 1992 and FIR was lodged on 02nd May. 1992. It is further submitted that, there is no any independent witness examined by the prosecution and all ten witnesses examined by the prosecution are interested witnesses. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants further submitted that, the appellants are convicted merely relying on the evidence of P.W.3/Muktabai. According to the counsel for the appellants, the evidence of Muktabai is general in nature and in absence of any corroboration to her evidence the Special Court should have acquitted the appellants/ accused. However, relying on evidence of Muktabai, the Special Court has convicted the appellants. According to the counsel for the appellants, the evidence of Muktabai is general in nature and in absence of any corroboration to her evidence the Special Court should have acquitted the appellants/ accused. However, relying on evidence of Muktabai, the Special Court has convicted the appellants. The counsel further submitted that, there is genera] statement by this witness that, "we were not allowed to take water thereafter and we were not allowed to answer the call of nature by Vishwamber Patil and Abaji Patil". According to learned counsel for the appellants, they were not allowed is not stated in the evidence by this witness. Whether they were not allowed to enter is not also stated in the evidence and what manner they were prevented from taking water or going to answer nature's call has not been stated in the evidence before the Court. Therefore, counsel for the appellants would submit that, the appellants deserve to be acquitted from the charges leveled against them. Learned counsel also invited my attention tot he other evidence which reads against the appellants and submitted that said evidence suffers from material contradictions and omissions and, therefore, counsel for the appellants relying on the grounds in the appeal memo and arguments advanced before the Trial Court by the counsel for the appellants and other material would submit that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State submits that, there is evidence which suggest that the involvement of the appellants herein in the commission of offence. It is further submitted that, taking into consideration the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the Special Court has correctly arrived to the conclusion that the appellants herein are liable to be convicted for the offence under section 3(1)(xiv) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that, appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. With the assistant of learned counsel appearing for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor. I have perused the entree compilation and also evidence made available. 12. Upon perusal of the entire evidence and impugned judgment and order. it appears that in all nine accused were tried U/Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and U/Sec.4(i)(iv) of the Protection of the Civil Rights Act. I have perused the entree compilation and also evidence made available. 12. Upon perusal of the entire evidence and impugned judgment and order. it appears that in all nine accused were tried U/Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and U/Sec.4(i)(iv) of the Protection of the Civil Rights Act. However, all of them are acquitted for the offence punishable UI Sec.4(i)(iv) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. It further appears that, out of these nine accused seven are acquitted from the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. However, the appellants herein who are original accused Nos.6 and 8 namely Vishwambhar Bhosale and Abaji Tekale are convicted of the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and each of them is sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine each of accused has to suffer S.I. for one month. 13. It is not necessary to narrate the entire episode happened at the said village on the date of incident or thereafter. The Special Court trying the said case had commented upon the recitals of the complaint and the deposition of all the prosecution witnesses as far as the incident which took place on 30th April, 1992. The Court has recorded that the prosecution witnesses consistently speak that while the procession was going on a dash of boy who was playing lezim was received by accused Manika and, therefore, some exchange of words between the two groups took place. However, it has also come in the evidence of the witnesses that the matter was pacified and the Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti was peacefully celebrated. P.W.8/Narsing was the police head constable, who was on Bandobast duty since the procession started on 30th April, 1992. He has stated the incident which took place on 30th April, 1992 in the procession. He has stated that after incident he tried to resolve the quarrel and accordingly afterwards the procession peacefully went ahead. The Special Court in para 13 held that, though P.W.8 is police head constable, his evidence can be believed because I find it genuine. He has stated the incident which took place on 30th April, 1992 in the procession. He has stated that after incident he tried to resolve the quarrel and accordingly afterwards the procession peacefully went ahead. The Special Court in para 13 held that, though P.W.8 is police head constable, his evidence can be believed because I find it genuine. He has further observed that, if the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses are taken into consideration, it can be very well said that a dash of a boy was received by accused Manika when the procession was going on, and, therefore, petty incident took place between accused persons, particularly accused Manika and the persons who were participated in the procession. 14. It is the prosecution case as stated by the prosecution witnesses that, on next date i.e. on 01st May, 1992, a meeting was held by the villagers including some of the accused persons on the platform of Maroti temple and it was decided in the said meeting to deny the access to the persons belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe to the public water stand, shops, passage, flour mill, etc.. In para 15 of the judgment impugned, the Special Court has referred to the deposition of the prosecution witnesses and also taken into consideration the contention of the accused persons and in para 16 observed, thus: "if at all it is held that, the prosecution failed to prove the presence of almost all the accused in the meeting which was held on 01st May, 1992, on the platform at the most it can be held that some of the accused namely Manika, Parbata and Ananda attended the said meeting. It has further come in the evidence of almost all the prosecution witnesses that some male members of Scheduled Caste left village Khatgaon due to fear. It has also come on record that after the meeting was held, some persons gave slogans, "Har Har Mahadev". In such circumstances I do not think that almost all the prosecution witnesses are situated near Maroti temple, where the meeting was held, "Viewed thus. I hold that a meeting of some villagers was definitely held on 1-5-1992 on the platform of Maroti temple." (emphasis supplied) 15. In such circumstances I do not think that almost all the prosecution witnesses are situated near Maroti temple, where the meeting was held, "Viewed thus. I hold that a meeting of some villagers was definitely held on 1-5-1992 on the platform of Maroti temple." (emphasis supplied) 15. The Special Court in para 18 has discussed about, whether the accused and some villagers decided in the said meeting to deny the access to the persons belonging to S.C. and S.T. to the public places such as shops. public water stand, passage, flour mill, etc.. The Special Court has discussed the evidence of the complainant and other prosecution witnesses in the said paragraph. In para 19, the Special Court has observed that, the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste who were afraid. some of them left village Khatgaon in the same night on the date of incident and could not dare to stand near the Maroti temple, where the meeting of the persons other than scheduled caste was going on. Therefore, the Special Court arrived to the conclusion that, all the witnesses would not be able to speak actually what was decided in the meeting. However, the Special Court in para 19 recorded. "but the evidence is clear that, the meeting was held on the platform of Maroti temple and some decision was taken there. Now it is to be considered what was the impact of the said meet in the routine life of the persons belonging to the scheduled caste and whether the resolution which was passed in the said meeting was implemented by the persons." (Emphasis supplied) 16. The Special Court has observed in para 19 that, in such cases there could not be direct evidence regarding the resolution, which has been passed in the said meeting. The subsequent conduct of the accused and other villagers who were not belonging to the scheduled caste is to be taken into consideration. Thereafter, the Special Court has discussed the independent instances in paras 20 to 25. In para 20, the Special Court has discussed the evidence of P.W.3/Muktabai, P.WA/Pandurang and P.W.5/Govind. It is observed that, admittedly they belong to scheduled caste. Thereafter, the Special Court has discussed the independent instances in paras 20 to 25. In para 20, the Special Court has discussed the evidence of P.W.3/Muktabai, P.WA/Pandurang and P.W.5/Govind. It is observed that, admittedly they belong to scheduled caste. They have stated about the incident which took place in the procession and also they have stated about the meeting which was held on platform of Maroti temple on 15-1992 and also they have stated about subsequent acts of some of the accused. The Special Court has referred to the evidence of the Muktabai and observed that, Muktabai admits that she did not go to the Maroti temple when the meeting was being held, She speaks that nothing happened thereafter in the village. That, means the meeting was held. It does not mean that nothing was happened in the village till the complaint was filed. The Special Court has further observed that, Muktabai positively speaks that she and Jalubai were not allowed to take water and were not allowed to go to answer call of nature by accused Vishwambar and accused Abaji i.e. accused Nos.6 and 8. She further added that she herself and Jalubai were prevented to go to answer call of nature near the outskirt of village. She was subjected to cross-examination at length and her evidence was not shaken on the point that she was denied access to the public place. The Special Court has also referred evidence of P.WA/Pandurang and recorded that, accused Shripat kept thorny fencing in front of the house of Pandurang. However, the Special Court has acquitted said Shripat on the ground that merely because thorny fencing was kept in front of house, cannot be construed as denial to the access to the public places. In para 21, the Special Court has referred to evidence of P.W.5/Govind and also P.W.1 Nenkati who was complainant, whose complaint was exhibited as Exhibit 33. The Special Court observed in para 21 that the evidence of P.W.1 Nenkat and Govind speak in volume against the accused. In para 21, the Special Court has referred to evidence of P.W.5/Govind and also P.W.1 Nenkati who was complainant, whose complaint was exhibited as Exhibit 33. The Special Court observed in para 21 that the evidence of P.W.1 Nenkat and Govind speak in volume against the accused. The Special Court after referring to the evidence of these witnesses and also evidence of Muktabai held that, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 Venkati and Govind certainly discloses that after meeting was held- persons belonging to scheduled caste i.e. Muktabai and some other ladies were prevented to go to answer call of nature and this circumstance is sufficient to infer what was decided in the meeting. The Special Court has also referred to the evidence of I.O. where he has stated that when he carried out investigation some persons belonging to S.C. did not come forward to give statement. The Special Court in para 24 has discussed the evidence of Gangubai and accepted her evidence to the extent that her evidence is sufficient to infer that persons or ladies belonging to S.C. were denied their access tot he public place. 17. Therefore, after appreciating entire evidence, the Special Court in para 26 recorded clear findings against the present appellants who are original accused Nos.6 and 8 that, the evidence on record make sit clear that, the act of accused Nos.6 and 8 Vishwambhar and Abaji, preventing Muktabai from going to answer call of nature falls within the ambit of Section 3(1)(xiv) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Court has also observed that, it is not the case of the defence that Muktabai has no right to go outskirt of the village to answer the call of nature and impliedly she has right to go outskirt of the village and that right has been denied by the accused No.6/ Vishwambhar and accused No.8/Abaji. The Special Court in para 29 has held that, the prosecution has successfully established that, the accused Nos.6 and 8 Vishwambhar and Abaji denied access to Muktabai and Jalubai from using a place of public resort, Muktabai is innocent person. She does not have any reason to implicate falsely accused No.6/ Vishwambhar and accused No.8/Abaji. Her evidence appears to be satisfactory, cogent and reliable and, therefore, the Special Court accepted the evidence and convicted the appellants/accused. 18. She does not have any reason to implicate falsely accused No.6/ Vishwambhar and accused No.8/Abaji. Her evidence appears to be satisfactory, cogent and reliable and, therefore, the Special Court accepted the evidence and convicted the appellants/accused. 18. It is not in dispute that, all the accused persons are not the members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. It has also come on record that, complainant and other prosecution witnesses are members of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe as the case may be. There is no dispute on this point. 19. It is not necessary to again re-appreciate the evidence in its entirety on the point of procession, obstruction in procession and, thereafter peaceful procession of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti, since the Special Court has recorded that, such incident had happened which gave cause to the further meeting in the village and subsequent activities of the accused persons. Upon perusal of the complaint given by the complainant on 02-05-1992, the name of present appellants does figure in the said complaint. The name of appellant No.1/Abaji Shripatrao Tekale is at Sr. No.1 and name of appellant No.2 Nishwambhar Bhikaji Bhosale is at Sr. No.5. Therefore, there was a complaint against the appellants/accused and against other accused persons also. There is no doubt that, in the said village as concluded by the Special Court, there was some incident took place between accused persons and particularly accused Manika and the persons who have participated in the procession i.e. procession of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Jayanti. The Special, Court has also recorded the positive findings that, the meeting was conducted by the accused persons and other villagers on 005-1992 at 9.00 p.m.. There ,was individual overt act by some of the accused after meeting to prevent the members of the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe from giving access to the public places like fetching water, not allowing them to go to answer call of nature, etc. as discussed by the Special Court in its judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, in this appeal what is required to be considered is the evidence of P.W.3/Muktabai, P.W.4/Pandurang and P.W.5/Govind, because relying on their evidence the appellants are convicted by the Special Court for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 20. as discussed by the Special Court in its judgment. Therefore, in my opinion, in this appeal what is required to be considered is the evidence of P.W.3/Muktabai, P.W.4/Pandurang and P.W.5/Govind, because relying on their evidence the appellants are convicted by the Special Court for the offence punishable U/Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 20. P.W.3/Muktabai whose evidence is at Exhibit 36, in her examination-in-chief has stated that, she knows all the accused persons who are before the Court. She is Mahar by caste. The incident took place six years ago. It was day of Babasaheb Jayanti. She was standing under Wad tree. The boy who was playing lezim received kick blow. Therefore, there was hue and cry in the procession. The some persons intervened the matter, pacified the crowed and procession started. The function was over. Accused Parbatrao called the meeting on the next day near Maroti temple at 8-9 p.m.. This witness has further stated that, "Nothing happened thereafter in the village. Thereafter, we did not come out of our house. I don't know Jalubai. We were not allowed to take water thereafter and were not allowed to answer call of nature by Vishwamber Patil and Abaii Patil' Myself and Jalubai were prevented to go to answer call of nature near outskirt of vi Hagen. The above quoted and underlined portion from the evidence of P.W.3 in vernacularreads thus: **uarj xkokr dkghi.k ?kMys ukgh] uarj vkEgh vkeP;k ?kjkckgsjgh iMyks ugh] tywckbZyk Hkh vksy[kr ukgh] uarj vkEgkyk ik.kh Hkj.k;kl ;sow fnys ukgh] laMklyk i.k tkow fnys ukgh] vkjksih fo'oaHkj ikVhy o vkckth ikVykus vkEgkyk laMklyk oxSjs ;sow fnys ukgh] eyk o tywckbZyk laMklyk [kkjhe/;s] xkokckgsj ;wo fnys ukgh-** 21. The evidence of P.W.3/Muktabai has not shattered in any manner in the cross-examination. On the contrary, she has denied the suggestion that, no meeting of the accused and other persons was held in the village, as she has stated. She has also denied the suggestion that nobody prevented her from going to answer call of nature and to fetch water from water tap. She has also denied the suggestion that her house is far away from Maroti temple. Therefore, the evidence of this witness appears to be fully trustworthy. 22. She has also denied the suggestion that nobody prevented her from going to answer call of nature and to fetch water from water tap. She has also denied the suggestion that her house is far away from Maroti temple. Therefore, the evidence of this witness appears to be fully trustworthy. 22. While convicting the appellants/ accused U/Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the Special Court has also relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5. It has also come in the evidence of P.W.1 Nenkati and P.W.5/Govind that, after meeting was held, the persons belonging to S.C. i.e. Muktabai and some other ladies were prevented by the accused persons to have access to public places. There is evidence brought on record by the prosecution that, persons from Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe were prevented from going to answer call of nature, from taking water from public tap, etc.. The counsel for the appellants was at pains to argue that, the evidence of Muktabai/P.W.3 alone that too which is not specified in nature cannot form the basis of conviction. In my opinion, if the evidence of Muktabai read with the evidence of other prosecution witnesses like P.W.4 and P.W.5, it can be convincingly said that such incident had taken place. If the evidence of one witness is convincing and sufficient and more particularly in the cases like one in hand, the conviction can be based upon the evidence of sale witness. However, the prosecution in this case has brought on record the evidence of other prosecution witnesses to show that such incident of preventing the members of S.C. and S.T. community to have access to the public places in the said village has taken place. The Scheduled Castes and scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted by the Parliament with following statement of objects and reasons. "Statement of Objects and Reasons. Despite various measures to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. 2. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. 2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bounded and forced labour. the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect of honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Cases and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. of late, there has been and increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Castes persons eat inedible substances 1ike human excreta and attacks on the mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing law like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary. 3. The term "atrocity" has not been defined so far. It is considered necessary that no only the term "atrocity" should be defined but stringent measures should be introduced to provide for higher punishments for committing such atrocities. It is a/w proposed to enjoining on the States and the Union territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from being victimised and where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. " 23. It is a/w proposed to enjoining on the States and the Union territories to take specific preventive and punitive measures to protect the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes from being victimised and where atrocities are committed, to provide adequate relief and assistance to rehabilitate them. 4. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects. " 23. Therefore, perusal of statement of objects and reasons would make it clear that, the said Act has been enacted by the Parliament for laudable purpose and to see that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are not denied number of civil rights. They should not be allowed to be subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassments. It has also observed in the statement of objects and reasons that, when the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. The Parliament in its wisdom thought fit to bring such enactment, since the existing law like the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found inadequate to check and deter these crimes. Therefore, special legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes, had, therefore, become necessary. If the case in hand is considered in the light of statement of objects and reasons reproduced hereinabove, certainly the conviction of the appellants deserves to be sustained. The Special Court has taken into consideration, the evidence of prosecution witnesses and more particularly P.W.3/ Muktabai, and convicted the appellants/ accused U/Sec.3(1)(xiv) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The provision of Sec.3(1)(xiv), of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 reads thus : ".1. Punishments for offences of atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe.- (i) .. .......... (ii) ............ (iii) ............ (xiv) denies a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Schedule Tribe any customary right of passage to a place of public resort or obstructs such member so as to prevent him from using or having access to a place of public resort to which other members of public or any section thereof have a right to use or access to;" 24. In the instant case, there is convincing evidence of Muktabai and also prosecution has successfully brought on record that in the said village during the said period, the members of the S.C. or S.T. were prevented access to the public places. Even if it is assumed for a moment that, there is evidence of only P.W.3/Muktabai in respect of appellants. her solitary evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction of the appellants/accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007)14 S.C.C. page 150: [2007 ALL MR (Cri) 1132 (S.C.)], has held that: "It is no doubt true that there is only one eye-witness who is also a close relative of the deceased viz. his son. It is the quality and not the quantity of evidence which is necessary for proving or disproving a fact It is clear that Indian legal system does not insist on plurality of witnesses. Neither the legislature (Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 1872) nor the judiciary mandates that there must be a particular number of witnesses to record an order of conviction against the accused. Our legal system has always laid emphasis on value, weight and quality of evidence rather than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses. It is, therefore, open to a competent court to fully and completely rely on a solitary witness and record conviction. Conversely, it may acquit the accused in spite of testimony of several witnesses if it is not satisfied about the quality of evidence. The bald contention that no conviction can be recorded in case of a solitary eye-witness, therefore, has no force and must be negatived. As a general rule, a court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness though uncorroborated. One credible witness outweighs the testimony of a number of other witnesses of indifferent character. There are exceptions to this rule, for example, in cases of sexual offences or of the testimony of an approver; both these are cases in which the oral testimony is by its very nature, suspect, being that of a participator in crime. It is also a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child. whether sworn or unsworn, but this is a rule of prudence and not of law. It is also a sound rule in practice not to act on the uncorroborated evidence of a child. whether sworn or unsworn, but this is a rule of prudence and not of law. Whether corroboration of the testimony of a single witness is or is not necessary, must depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no general rule can be laid down in a matter like this and much depends upon the judicial discretion of the judge before whom the case comes. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the "sole" testimony of such witness." 25. The another argument of the counsel for the appellants that, the incident in question had taken place in the month of May, 1992, i.e. before 18 to 19 years, and therefore, this Court may take lenient view and acquit the appellants/accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of M.P. Vs. Kashiram reported in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 107 : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 925 (S.C.)] has observed that, undue sympathy to impose inadequate sentence would do more harm to the justice system to undermine the public confidence in the efficacy of law and society could not long endure under such serious threats. It is, therefore, the duty of every court to award proper sentence having regard to the nature of the offence and the manner in which it was executed or committed, etc., Paras 16 and 17 of the aforesaid judgment reads thus: "16. Imposition of sentence without considering its effect on the social order in many cases may be in reality a futile exercise. The social impact of the crime, e.g. where it relates to offences against women, dacoity, kidnapping, misappropriation of public money, treason and other offences involving moral turpitude or moral delinquency which have great impact on social order, and public interest, cannot be lost sight of and per se require exemplary treatment. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long 'run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system." (emphasis supplied) "17. Any liberal attitude by imposing meager sentences or taking too sympathetic view merely on account of lapse of time in respect of such offences will be result-wise counter productive in the long 'run and against societal interest which needs to be cared for and strengthened by string of deterrence inbuilt in the sentencing system." (emphasis supplied) "17. The Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate punishment is not awarded for a crime which has been committed not only against the individual victim but also against the society to which the criminal and victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to and be consistent with the atrocity and brutality with which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it should "respond to the society's cry for justice against "the criminal"." (emphC1sis supplied) 26. The counsel for the appellants also submitted that, the appellants/accused are not involved in any other offence except this alleged offence and, therefore, this Court may consider to grant them benefit of Probation of Offenders Act or Sec.360 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Said prayer of the appellants cannot be entertained in view of Sec.19 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Sec.19 of the Act reads thus : "12. Section 360 of the Code or the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act not to apply to persons guilty of an offence under the Act. The provisions of section 360 of the Code and the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 (20 of 1958) shall not apply to any person above the age of eighteen years who is found guilty of having committed an offence under this Act." 27. Section 20 of the said Act gives overriding effect to the provisions of the said Act over other laws. Section 20 of the said Act reads thus: "20. Act to override other laws Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." 28. Act to override other laws Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any custom or usage or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." 28. Taking over all view of the matter, in my opinion, this is a fit case to confirm the conviction of the appellants/ accused under the said Act. The Offence committed by the appellants/accused that too in the 20th century is certainly anti-social and great threat to the democratic set up and freedom of an individual citizen. In my opinion, such events/incidents which had taken place in the said village are against the humanity. Such incidents, aggressions and acts are not only condemnable, but also required to be delt with seriously by awarding appropriate sentence. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the judgment and order passed by the Special Court, Nanded in Special Case No.12/l996, dated 28th October, 1999 stands fully confirmed. Appeal stands dismissed. 29. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded to see that the accused/appellants should surrender themselves within two weeks from today to undergo sentence order by the Special Judge, Nanded in Special Case No. 12/1996. The Superintendent of Police, Nanded through concerned police station to submit report to this Court about surrender of the accused to undergo the sentence as awarded/ ordered by the Special Judge, Nanded. The bail bonds of the accused/appellants stand cancelled. The copy of this judgment be sent immediately, by the Registry to the• Superintendent of Police, Nanded. Appeal dismissed.