JUDGMENT 1. - This criminal jail appeal has been filed by the convict- appellant, Surtan Singh S/o Jawahar Singh, by caste Rajput, against the judgment and order dated 12.09.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) (District & Sessions Judge), Balotra in Sessions Case No.50/93-State of Rajasthan v. Surtan Singh, whereby the learned trial court convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as under:- S. No. Conviction Sentence 1 3 (1) (x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of 200/-, in default of payment of fine,further undergo one month's additional imprisonment. 2 323 of IPC Six months' rigorous imprisonment with fine of 200/-, in default of payment of fine,further undergo one month's additional imprisonment. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant, Magaram Meghwal (working as teacher in Government Upper Primary School, Booth) lodged a typed report on 19.08.1993 before the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, to the effect that when the accused-appellant, Surtan Singh restrained the ladies and children of Meghwal community from taking water from the Public Tap of the village Booth, the complainant reproached the accused- appellant. On 17.08.1993, at about 01.00 PM when the complainant was going to his home from school, the accused appellant, Surtan Singh, came with 'Lathi' and gave beatings and abused him by caste as the complainant belongs to 'Meghwal' (SC/ST) community. On hearing the hue and cry, the wife of the complainant and other persons came and rescued him.3. On this report registered through the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, the investigation was commenced, and the police after investigation filed Challan against the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1989') and 341, 323 and 504 of IPC. Thereafter charges were framed for the aforesaid offences, to which the accused- appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.4. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, viz. PW.1 Maga Ram, PW.2 Kenku Devi, PW.3 Mst. Kenku Devi S/o Prahlad Ram, PW.4 Magaram, PW. 5 Achlaram, PW. 6 Mahipal Singh, PW. 7 Narayanram, and PW.8 Tikmaram in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 531/1994 Surtan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Judgment dated 09/10/2012 support of their case. At the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, viz. PW.1 Maga Ram, PW.2 Kenku Devi, PW.3 Mst. Kenku Devi S/o Prahlad Ram, PW.4 Magaram, PW. 5 Achlaram, PW. 6 Mahipal Singh, PW. 7 Narayanram, and PW.8 Tikmaram in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 531/1994 Surtan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Judgment dated 09/10/2012 support of their case. The accused in their statements under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the allegations of the prosecution and examined DW.1, namely, Devi Singh in his defence.5. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court found that even though there was a delay of two days in filing the FIR, which was registered on the basis of written/typed report filed by the complainant before the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, which was 40-45 km. away from the place of occurrence, but the prosecution witnesses have established that the accused appellant gave beatings to the complainant, Maga Ram and also abused him by caste as he belongs to lower caste. On the basis of evidence of PW.2 Kenku Devi (wife of the complainant) and other prosecution witnesses, the learned trial court vide its judgment and order dated 12.09.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, Surtan Singh, as mentioned above.6. Being aggrieved by his conviction and sentence, the accused-appellant preferred the present appeal before this Court.7. Mr. Suresh Kumbhat, learned counsel for the convict- appellant submitted that the conviction of the accused-appellant in this case is absolutely unwarranted. He further submitted that there was delay in lodging the FIR, which was fatal, and no plausible explanation was given by the complainant and he (complainant) being a teacher and qualified, was expected to file FIR immediately upon happening of the incident, if at all took place; and instead of filing FIR in the nearest police station, the complainant submitted a S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 531/1994 Surtan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Judgment dated 09/10/2012 typed report through the Superintendent of Police, Barmer, which office was 45 kms. away from the place of incident. away from the place of incident. He also submitted that the learned trial court has also expressed apprehension about the delay in filing the FIR, which was explained by way of the fact that the PW.2, Kenku Devi (wife of the complainant) has averred that initially her "Devar" namely, Prahlad (brother of the complainant) tried to make a compromise with the accused through one Ranji Mahajan of the village, who was never examined by the court below as prosecution witness. The PW.1, Maga Ram (complainant) himself had stated before the court below that the accused-appellant was found to be visiting nearby place of his house and he was armed with weapon ('Dharia'), but this fact was not stated in the FIR (Ex.1) and, therefore, the version of the complainant and the witnesses given before the court below creates serious doubt on the happening of the incident at all. He further submitted that the PW.2, 3, 4 and 7 came on the spot after the incident and they were not the eye witnesses. He, therefore, submitted and no offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 is made out, and even for the offence under Section 323 of IPC for causing simple injuries, even if the conviction is maintained, the accused-appellant had already undergone the imprisonment for the period of fifteen days from 09.09.1993 to 23.09.1993, and therefore, the period of sentence of six months, may be reduced to the period already undergone by the accused appellant in jail.8. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. Ashok Prajapat, opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned PP submitted that there is no occasion either to interfere with the findings and the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned Court below nor any sympathy is called for in the said case looking to the seriousness of the offence. He, therefore, submitted that there is no improvement in the statements recorded by the learned trial court from the version given in the FIR and consequently, the conviction under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 and Section 323 of IPC deserves to be upheld.9. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the learned court below, record and statements of prosecution witnesses.10. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgment of the learned court below, record and statements of prosecution witnesses.10. The complainant, Maga Ram (PW.1) was a teacher working in the Government school and, therefore, it is normally not expected that he would cause delay in filing of the FIR for as much as two days; and the FIR, which was ultimately filed through Superintendent of Police, Barmer, shows that the complainant was well within his right and could have filed the FIR immediately after the incident in the nearest police station. This creates a reasonable suspicion that such report as an after-thought was lodged later on, complaining of the incident, which took place two days back. The version given by the PW.2- Kenku (wife of the complainant) and PW.1- Maga Ram, complainant himself, there are discrepancies, which has not been explained by the prosecution. The PW.2, Kenku, S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 531/1994 Surtan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Judgment dated 09/10/2012 in her statements dated 18.07.1994 stated that on the very day of incident, 4-5 people working in the school including her "Devar", namely, Prahlad, came to meet the complainant on the same day, still none of these people working in the school lodge the FIR soon after the incident with the nearest police station, which was at a distance of about 25 kms. Thus, on account of this contradiction in the two versions given by the complainant and his wife, it cannot be said that prosecution has explained the delay in filing the FIR sufficiently.11. In this circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that that delay even of two days in filing the FIR, raises some suspicion in the mind of the Court that injury in question was caused by the accused-appellant on account of appellant belonging to higher caste and complainant belonging to lower caste. Thus, the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989 recorded by the learned trial court against the accused-appellant, does not appear to have been established beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, on the basis of statements of the prosecution witnesses support by the injury report Ex. P/2, the prosecution has established and proved the said offence against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. So far as the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, on the basis of statements of the prosecution witnesses support by the injury report Ex. P/2, the prosecution has established and proved the said offence against the accused-appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction u/s 323 of IPC is upheld.12. In view of above, this criminal appeal is partly allowed with the modification of the impugned judgment of the learned trial court dated 12.09.1994 to the extent that while upholding the S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 531/1994 Surtan Singh v. State of Rajasthan Judgment dated 09/10/2012 conviction of the accused Appellant under section 323 of I.P.C., the sentence awarded to these accused-appellants for the aforesaid offences, is reduced to the period already undergone by the accused-appellant in jail of fifteen days while increasing the amount of fine of Rs. 200/- imposed by the learned trial court to Rs. 1,000/-, which shall be deposited by the accused-appellant with the learned trial court within a period one month from today. The accused- appellant, Surtan Singh, is acquitted from the conviction recorded under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act of 1989. The increased fine amount ( Rs. 1,000/-) upon deposition with the learned trial court, the learned trial court shall disburse the same to the complainant by issuing notice to the complainant. The appellant, Surtan Singh need not surrender and his bail bonds are cancelled. Copy of this judgment be sent to the court below forthwith.Appeal partly allowed. *******