JUDGMENT : Vimla Jain, J. - Appellant/accused Ram Bahadur Singh preferred this appeal under Sec­tion 374(2)of the Criminal procedure code be­ing aggrieved by the judgment dated 12.3.1996 passed by special Judge Shahdol (under sec­tion 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and sched­uled Tribes prevention of (Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter which shall be referred to as 'Act') in Special case No.34/96 whereby appellant/' accused has been convicted and sentenced un­der section 3(1)(X)of the Act with rigorous im­prisonment for six months, 2. Short facts of the case are that on 22.1.1995. complainant Bhole Baiga a resident of Village Tijhariya lodged a report against appellant/'accused at police station Manpur. Dis­trict shahdol that his ox entered in the field of appellant/accused who kept his ox in his pos­session for about four days. On 19.1.1995 at about 5:00 pm. He come to know that his ox was in possession of appellant/accused. His son Shiv Prasad rushed towards the house of appellant' accused and asked to return his ox. The appellant/accused shouted on him by uttering filthy and abusive language and said that as he did not plough his field, he would not return his ox. The appellant/accused also threatened to shoot him if he makes complaint against him at police station. On a report made by complain­ant Bhole Baiga on 22.1.1995.the police took cognizance of the matter, seized the ox from the possession of appellant/accused by seizure memo (EX/P6) and handed over the ox to com­plainant Bhole baiga . A spot map (Ex/P5)was prepared. 3. On the basis of the FIR, investigation was done and a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant under section 3(1)(x)of the Act. 4. Appellant/accused was charged under sec­tion 3(1)(x) of the Art He denied the guilt and claimed to be tried mainly contending that he has been falsely implicated, in the special court (SC/ST)for trial. 5. In order to bring home the charges against the appellant the prosecution examined five witnesses and placed the documents EX/PI to EX/P7 on record. The defence of the appellant is of false implication on the basis of false com­plaint which was made by complainant Bhole Baiga at police station Manpur, District Shahdol. 6. The learned special Judge on the basis of evidence placed in record held that the appel­lant did commit the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 7. 6. The learned special Judge on the basis of evidence placed in record held that the appel­lant did commit the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act and convicted and sentenced him as mentioned above. 7. This appeal has been filed by the appel­lant assailing the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant because the prosecution has failed to prove required in­gredients of the offence under section 3(1)(x)of the Act. 9. Shri V.P. Pandey .learned Government Advocate has argued in support of the impugned judgment. 10. Now the question for consideration is that whether the trial Court has committed any ille­gality in convicting and sentencing the appel­lant under section 3(1)(x)of the Act. 11. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 12. For the sake of convenience, section 3(1)(x)of the Act, 1989 is extracted below:- "3. Punishments for offences of atrocities- (1) Whoever, not being a member of a sched­uled caste or a scheduled Tribe (x) inten­tionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; shall be punishable with imprisonment for s term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine," 13. Shiv Prasad (PW.4) stated that his ox entered in the field of accused Ram Bahadur Singh. He kept the ox in his possession. He asked to return his ox. But the appellant/accused did not return the ox and abused him in the following words;- (Matter in other Language) 14.Raju (PW.3) stated that he went to the home of the accused with Shiv Parsad (PW.4) The accused Ram Bahadur Singh abused Shiv Prasad (PW.4) in the following words;- (Matter in other Language But Bhola Baiga (PW.1) stated in the trial Court that the accused abused in the following words;- (Matter in other Language He was the first informant and filed the ap­plication (Ex/P1)which contains as follows;-(Matter in other Language) (Emphasis added by this court) Thus Bhole Baiga improved and ex­panded his version in the application (Ex/Pi)and in his statement and added the word 'Biga' By such improvement and expansion, he tried to attract the provisions of section 3(1)(x) of the Act reproduced above. 15. 15. On perusal of the said statements of the witnesses, it appears that the main cause of dis­pute among both the parties is entry of ox in the field of the appellant/accused. Shiv Prasad (PW.4) Son of the complainant and Raju (PW.3) who went to the house of accused, which was place of occurrence, did not depose that the accused used the word 'Baiga" during his abuse. Therefore the statement and application (Fx/P1) of Bhole Baiga (PW.1),who was not on the spot, could not be corroborated by both the spot wit­nesses. 16. It is the duty of the prosecution to prove the ingredients of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act which is quoted above. In this case, there is no evidence to show that the ap­pellant intentionally insulted or intimidated Shiv Prasad PW4 with intent to humilate him because he belonged to ' Baiga" tribe. Thus the ingredi­ents under section 3(1)(x)of the Act could be proved by the prosecution. 17. For the reasons stated above. I am un­able to uphold the conviction of appellant un­der section 3(1)(x)of the Act and accordingly his conviction is set aside and he is acquitted from the said charge. Appellant is on bail and his bail bond is discharged. Appeal allowed.