Judgment Bankim N. Mehta, J.—The appellant State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and challenged the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palanpur, on 15.1.1993 in Special Case No. 75 of 1992 acquitting the respondent-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 114 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and The Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“the Atrocities Act” for short). 2. According to the prosecution case, on 13.1.1992 at about 20 hours accused No. 1 Rajuji and accused No. 2 Visaji caught hold of injured Ishwar Mansang and accused No. 3 Chenaji Rajuji caused injury with dhariya on his head. It was also the prosecution case that accused intentionally insulted the injured intending that such provocation will cause him to break public peace. It was also the prosecution case that the accused intentionally insulted the injured being a member of a Scheduled Caste in public place within public view. 3. On the basis of F.I.R. lodged by injured Ishwar Mansang before Deodar Police Station on 14.1.1992, offence was registered and investigation was started. At the end of investigation charge-sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 114 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and the case was registered as Special Case No. 75 of 1992. The trial Court framed charge Exh. 4 against the accused for the aforesaid offence. Charge was read over and explained to the accused who pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, prosecution adduced evidence. On completion of recording of evidence, further statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded. The accused in their further statement stated that false case is filed against them. After hearing learned APP and learned advocate appearing for the accused, the trial Court by the impugned judgement acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State. None has appeared for the respondent-accused. I have also perused the impugned judgement and record and proceeding of the case. 5. Being aggrieved by the said decision, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. I have heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant State. None has appeared for the respondent-accused. I have also perused the impugned judgement and record and proceeding of the case. 5. It appears from the charges levelled against the accused that the prosecution case is that the accused have committed offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. In order to prove that first informant was a member of the Scheduled Caste and the accused intentionally insulted him in public place within public view, the prosecution has not produced any documentary evidence. Therefore, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the first informant was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore the trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused for the offence under the provisions of the Atrocities Act. 6. The prosecution has examined PW-2 injured Ishwar Mansang at Exh. 18. According to the witness while he was returning home at about 8 O’clock at night the accused were sitting on his way in inebriated condition and accused Rajuji used derogatory words and demanded money for liquor. As he refused to pay, accused No. 1 Rajuji and accused No. 2 Visaji caught hold of him and accused No. 3 Chenaji inflicted injury with dhariya on his head. The witness has also deposed that after the incident, he went home and informed his father about the incident. Thereafter, they went to Sarpanch Bhembhai. According to this witness, thereafter they went to Deodar Police station and lodged F.I.R. and thereafter police sent him to hospital and he was treated as indoor patient in the hospital for 7 days. The witness has been exclusively cross-examined. In the cross-examination, the witness has deposed that he had informed the Doctor about the incident and had given names of the assailants to the Doctor who recorded the same. 7. The prosecution has also examined PW-3 Mansang Hemraj at Exh. 19. The witness was the father of the injured. It appears from the evidence of this witness that after the incident, the injured informed him about the incident. Thereafter both of them went to the Sarpanch and thereafter lodged the F.I.R. In the cross-examination the witness has deposed that they remained at police station for 1 to 1 ½ hours and thereafter went to the hospital. It appears from the evidence of this witness that after the incident, the injured informed him about the incident. Thereafter both of them went to the Sarpanch and thereafter lodged the F.I.R. In the cross-examination the witness has deposed that they remained at police station for 1 to 1 ½ hours and thereafter went to the hospital. The witness has also deposed that his statement was recorded on the next day. 8. The prosecution has also examined PW-4 Bhembhai Valbhai, Sarpanch, at Exh. 20. According to the witness the injured informed him that accused Chenaji was coming to him for labour work and on account of dispute of money, complaint is filed. In the cross-examination the witness has deposed that injured Ishwar Mansang informed him that accused Chenaji was coming for work since four days and account with regard to payment for the labour work was pending. 9. The prosecution has also examined PW-1 Dr Dilipkumar Keshavlal Thakker at Exh. 10 who treated the injured. According to the witness the injured came to him at 10.50 at night without police yadi and he treated him. The witness issued medical Certificate Exh. 11. 10. In view of the above evidence, it emerges that accused Chenaji was working with the injured about four days before the incident and there were disputes between them with regard to payment. It also appears that the alleged incident occurred at about 8 O’clock at night and after the incident, the injured went to the Doctor without police yadi and was treated there. The prosecution has also produced medical Certificate at Exh. 11. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the injured was treated as indoor patient for seven days as deposed by the injured. According to the injured, he gave names of the assailants to the Doctor and he recorded the same. However, the Doctor has denied this fact. There is no mention of assailants’ name in medical Certificate. It is also significant that according to the Doctor the hospital is on Terra Road and while coming to the hospital from the village there is police station in between. However, despite the fact that the police station was on the way, the injured did not lodge any FIR for the incident. It is also significant that according to the Doctor the hospital is on Terra Road and while coming to the hospital from the village there is police station in between. However, despite the fact that the police station was on the way, the injured did not lodge any FIR for the incident. It is also significant that the alleged incident occurred at about 8 O’clock at night and treatment was taken at 10.50 at night and thereafter at about 12.45 hours FIR was lodged before the police. All these create serious doubt about the prosecution case that the accused attacked the injured. 11. It is also significant that father of the injured PW-4 Bhembhai has deposed that injured informed him that accused Chenaji was doing labour work at his place and there was dispute about payment. Therefore, it emerges that there was dispute between the injured and accused Chenaji and hence possibility of false implication of the accused cannot be ruled out. 12. Learned A.P.P. has not been able to point out any infirmity in the impugned judgement. 13. In view of the above, learned trial Judge was justified in recording acquittal and hence no interference is warranted in the impugned judgement. Therefore, the appeal fails and stands dismissed. P P P P P