JUDGMENT G.D. Saxena, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment dated 24th August 2005 rendered in Special Sessions Case No. 4/2005 by the Special Judge (SC & ST) M.P., the appellants/accused have preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Appellant No. 2-Omprakash Singh has challenged his conviction under Sections 323 and 324/34 of IPC and sentences to pay fines of Rs. 700/- and Rs. 1,000/-, respectively, with default rigorous punishments of one month and three months whereas appellant No. 1-Rakesh has challenged his conviction for offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for short the SC & ST Act with rigorous punishment of six months and fine of Rs. 500/- and further sentences to pay fines of Rs. 700/- and Rs. 1,000/- for offence under Sections 323/34 and 324 of IPC together with default rigorous imprisonments of one month and three months, respectively. 2. The facts, in short, giving rise to submitting this appeal are that on 30th October, 2005, in the noon, at public hand pump in Ward No. 5 at Gohad Town, accused-appellant No. 1-Rakesh Gurjar, who did not belong to Scheduled Caste, made castus remarks against the complainant, who was a member of the Scheduled Caste. He intentionally insulted the complainant with intent to humiliate her at the place within public view when she was fetching the water from the hand pump. He also threw water on her person from the water pot. She made a complaint of the incident to her brother-in-law Dwarika at her residence. When her brother-in-law went to the residence of the accused, accused Rakesh Gurjar slapped him. Not only that in the evening at about 5 p.m., when she with her brother-in-law Dwarika was going to make a report to the police, on the way, accused Rakesh Gurjar and his father Omprakash Gurjar restrained them and accused Rakesh inflicted an injury by means of Farsa on the body of Dwarika while accused Omprakash dealt the complainant with a lathi blow causing injuries on her body. This time again, both the accused uttered bad insulting words to them. Consequently, on the report of the complainant, the FIR was lodged at Police Station Gohad. The investigation was set in motion. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against both the accused in Criminal Court. This time again, both the accused uttered bad insulting words to them. Consequently, on the report of the complainant, the FIR was lodged at Police Station Gohad. The investigation was set in motion. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed against both the accused in Criminal Court. On committal, the trial was commenced and after recording the evidence, the learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused, hence this appeal. 3. The contentions of the appellants are that the judgment under appeal is against the law and procedure and, therefore, same is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the Trial Judge while convicting the accused/appellants did not properly evaluate the evidence and documents as on record, hence, the conclusion arrived at without proper consideration of the factual and legal aspect deserves to be rejected at the threshold. It is submitted that the Trial Judge placed reliance only on the related and biased prosecution witnesses and therefore true picture did not come on record. He submits that the evidence on record is not sufficient to constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act and the conviction against the accused rested merely on surmises and conjunctures since no offence is proved. On these grounds, it is prayed that by allowing the appeal, judgment under challenge may be set aside and the accused-appellants may be acquitted of the alleged offence. 4. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent/State contended that the prosecution succeeded to prove the guilt against the accused by adducing evidence and there is no infirmity or illegality committed by the Trial Court in awarding impugned conviction and sentence. Hence, it is prayed that by dismissing the appeal, the judgment of the Trial Court may be maintained. 5. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. Also perused the record of the Trial Court and the law applicable to the present case. 6. In order to prove the charges framed against the accused/appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. 7. Complainant Urmila (P.W. 2) deposed that she belongs to Jatav caste and the accused are Gurjar by caste. Near about five months ago, in the noon, she went to fetch the water from government public hand pump. On the spot, accused Rakesh Gurjar was present. 7. Complainant Urmila (P.W. 2) deposed that she belongs to Jatav caste and the accused are Gurjar by caste. Near about five months ago, in the noon, she went to fetch the water from government public hand pump. On the spot, accused Rakesh Gurjar was present. He prevented the complainant from fetching the water. He abused her by calling Chamrawali by bad words. He also threw her water pot 'Kalasia' and poured the water over her from water pot. She therefore returned home and in the evening narrated the incident to her brother-in-law. As her brother-in-law Dwarika went to the residence of accused Rakesh for complaining about his such behaviour, both accused Rakesh and his father Omprakash slapped him and also threatened that they would not allow them to fetch the water from the public hand pump. 8. Dwarika Jatav (P.W. 3), brother-in-law of the complainant in support of the case deposed that on the day of incident, at about 5:00-5:30 p.m., on his returning home, the complainant informed him that accused Rakesh, while she was at the hand pump abused her by saying 'Chamaria' and restrained her from taking the water from the hand pump. So, he went to the house of accused Rakesh when again the accused Rakesh abused him by saying "Chamrawale" and slapped him. He returned back to his residence and thereafter he and his sister-in-law (complainant) left for lodging the report to Police Station. While they were going on, both the accused surrounded them and then accused Rakesh inflicted by means of Farsa twice, first on his head and second blow was received on the palm. Another accused Omprakash also caused injury by lathi to the complainant. 9. Adiram (P.W. 5), in his deposition well supported the statement of Urmila (P.W. 2) and Dwarka (P.W. 3) while witness Saddu @ Sahadat Khan (P.W. 6) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution version. 10. Dr. A.K. Mudgal (P.W. 8), Medical Officer posted in the Community Health Centre Gohad deposed that on 30th October, 2004, at about 7-10 p.m., he -examined injured Dwarika Prasad Jatav and found one incised wound of size 4 cm. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on right parietal side of skull, caused by sharp edging object within 24 hours. He opined that the injury was simple in nature. The said injury report is Exh. P-7 written and signed by him. x 1/2 cm. x 1/2 cm. on right parietal side of skull, caused by sharp edging object within 24 hours. He opined that the injury was simple in nature. The said injury report is Exh. P-7 written and signed by him. He further deposed that on the same day he examined injured Urmila, wife of Jaswant and found one contusion with abrasion of size 5 cm. x 2 cm. deep on left forearm, caused by hard and blunt object within 24 hours. This injury was also opined to be simple in nature. The injury report is Exh. P-8, written and signed by the doctor. 11. N.D. Jatav (P.W. 1) was the In-charge of the Police Station Gohad who had written the FIR lodged by Urmila on which a Crime No. 292/2004 was registered against the accused. Satyendra Singh Tomar (P.W. 7) SDO (P) Gohad on receipt of the case diary of Crime No. 292/2004 immediately started with investigation. He prepared the spot map (Exh. P/2) and recorded the case diary statement of eye-witnesses and other witnesses. On 17th November, 2004 he arrested the accused by arrest memos (Exh. P-5 and Exh. P-6). 12. The defence of the accused was that because of election rivalry, they are falsely implicated in the case. 13. On perusal of the entire evidence on record, it appears that accused Rakesh caused injury by means of Farsa on the head of witness Dwarika Prasad which was found to be simple in nature and co-accused Omprakash also caused injury to the complainant-Urmila by using lathi. In that view of the matter, so far as the conviction for commission of the alleged offences under Sections 323 and 324 read with Section 34 of IPC is concerned, the evidence on record clearly establishes the offence alleged and, therefore, the conviction for the said offence is hereby upheld. 14. Now, this Court has to consider whether the act of the accused Rakesh comes within the purview of the definition so as to justify his conviction and sentence recorded under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act? 15. Clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act makes following acts to be an offence, namely:-- (1) Wrongful dispossession of member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises. (2) Wrongful interference with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water. 16. 15. Clause (v) of sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act makes following acts to be an offence, namely:-- (1) Wrongful dispossession of member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe from his land or premises. (2) Wrongful interference with the enjoyment of his rights over any land, premises or water. 16. In the case of Shobit and another Vs. State of M.P., 2000 Cri.LJ 711 (MP), this Court has discussed elaborately and observed as follows:-- “For securing a conviction under Section 3(1)(v), the prosecution, for first cause is required to show that the accused had wrongfully dispossessed a member of SC or ST for his land or premises. A wrongful dispossession, in opinion of this Court, presupposes positive and de facto possession. Unless a man is shown to be in actual physical possession of the property, he can not be dispossessed. I have already found that the complainant was not in de facto possession. If a person is not in possession of the property, then he cannot be dispossessed. The second clause of Section 3(1)(v) provides that if somebody interferes with the enjoyment of complainant's right over any land, premises or water, then he shall be punished. On a fair reading, the words 'enjoyment of his right' must be read in juxtaposition with the words 'any land, premises and water', the first clause refers to the personal lands while the second clause relates to any land, premises or water. In fact the second clause applies to a case where the right to enjoy any land, premises or water has been interfered with. For securing conviction under the second clause, the prosecution is required to prove that the complainant had some rights and he was enjoying the said right over any land, premises or water. The second clause would cover a contingency relating to rights of easements, right of way and fetching of the water etc. Unless it is proved by the prosecution that the complainant had a right and was enjoying the same, the prosecution would not be entitled to say that because accused did not permit the complainant to take possession of the property which he was allegedly entitled he be convicted. 17. Unless it is proved by the prosecution that the complainant had a right and was enjoying the same, the prosecution would not be entitled to say that because accused did not permit the complainant to take possession of the property which he was allegedly entitled he be convicted. 17. As already stated above, since prosecution has been able to prove that the accused-appellant No. 1-Rakesh interfered with enjoyment of the complainant's right over the water, on examining the legal and factual aspects of the case and considering the statement of the complainant and the spot-map prepared during investigation, it appears that the learned Trial Judge has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant No. 1-Rakesh of offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v) of the Act, the findings of the learned Special Judge by which he convicted the accused-appellant No. 1 -Rakesh Gurjar of the charge for the offence under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act are liable to be and hereby confirmed. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The appellant No. 1 -Rakesh is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail bonds or shall be arrested to undergo the remainder of his impugned sentence.