JUDGMENT Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of conviction dated 9/11.7.2001 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Special Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2001, State vs. Devendra Singh & two others. Two other accused persons are parents of Devendra Singh. All three were tried for the offences under Section 323, 504, 506 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x)&(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the Act). Learned Trial Judge found the appellants guilty for the offences of Section 352, 504, 506(2) IPC read with the offences of the Act indicated above. For the offence under Section 352 and 504 IPC, only sentence of fine has been imposed, while for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC and for the above offences under the Act, each of the convicts appellants directed to undergo six months’ rigorous imprisonment along with fine of rupees five hundred each. 2. Backdrop of the prosecution story is a little quarrel over the water rights upon the natural water source. From that source indicated as point ‘D’ in the site plan Ex. Ka-5, water is carried to a water chamber constructed at the expenditure of the Government and the same has been indicated as point ‘A’ in the said site plan. From ‘A’ to ‘B’ the distance of 78 paces is covered by a water pipeline. That further goes ahead to the dwelling place of the accused persons indicated as point ‘C’ in the site plan. The complainant and victims belong to Scheduled Caste community. Number of Scheduled Caste persons are few in the vicinity, just 3-4, while upper caste persons (Thakurs) are in abundance. The dispute arose when some ladies of the Scheduled Caste community, namely, Smt. Parvati Devi, wife of complainant Chandra Lal, Smt. Sulochana Devi, wife of Devi Lal and another Smt. Sulochana Devi, wife of Patilal came to fetch water at point ‘B’ which was a water tap post. The accused persons interrupted them and created every hurdle to prevent them from collecting the water. Chandra Lal approached the District Magistrate concerned on 9.6.2000 with a written report Ex. Ka-1, but the same was not paid any heed by the District Magistrate or his subordinates. So, the resistance of the accused persons proceeded for couple of months further. The accused persons interrupted them and created every hurdle to prevent them from collecting the water. Chandra Lal approached the District Magistrate concerned on 9.6.2000 with a written report Ex. Ka-1, but the same was not paid any heed by the District Magistrate or his subordinates. So, the resistance of the accused persons proceeded for couple of months further. Informant Chandra Lal and his fellow community members became hapless to bear the same. 3. Further on the date of incident i.e. on 8.6.2000, a bout of verbal scare escalated and the aforementioned ladies were not permitted to fetch the water from the spot. Their buckets were snatched and the words of derision like dumra, dumri were uttered by the accused persons with intention to insult and intimidate them. In this backdrop, FIR Ex. Ka-2 was lodged on 6.12.2000. Chick report is Ex. Ka-3. Matter was investigated by an officer of the rank of Circle Officer, who submitted the charge-sheet as mentioned above. Charges were levelled and the trial commenced. 4. PW1 Chandra Lal, husband of Smt. Parvati Devi, though was not present on the spot but the entire facts were divulged to him by his wife and the same have been deposed by him in his examination before the trial court. His statement has been supported by the real victims, Smt. Parvati Devi and Smt. Sulochana Devi, who were present at the spot and were in real sense felt oppressed at the hands of the accused persons when they were even not permitted to take the drinking water from the spot. Version of both lady witnesses are quite corroborative to each other’s statement and are uniform in nature. 5. Learned Counsel for the accused appellants indicated some minor contradictions in the statements of fact witnesses, but these are of not such a magnitude as to disbelieve the whole prosecution story because the Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that these ladies are quite illiterate hailing from the remote hills. When they face cross-examination at the hands of a Counsel in the unusual surroundings of a courtroom, then such minor discrepancies and contradictions are bound to occur. There is nugget of truth in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 6. Now, the question which is crucial for consideration to this Court is whether any offence covered under the Act, as indicated above, is made out against the accused persons. There is nugget of truth in the statements of prosecution witnesses. 6. Now, the question which is crucial for consideration to this Court is whether any offence covered under the Act, as indicated above, is made out against the accused persons. Undoubtedly, there is evidence that word “dumri” was uttered for them by the accused persons, who are from upper caste. Learned Counsel for the applicant has relied upon a precedent of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court rendered in case of Karansingh and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1992 Cri. L.J. 3054. In that case, the dispute was over the fishing rights between the persons of Scheduled Caste and upper caste. Insulting and derogatory words were spoken by the upper caste people to the Scheduled Caste persons. Incident took place at 11 p.m. In that circumstances, the learned Single Judge was of the view that there is clear difference between the phrases “public place” and “public view”. To make out the offence under the Act, it should have been committed not only at the public place but should also be in the public view. If the alleged act has been committed only at “public place” but not in “public view” then such act cannot be attributed to be covered under the definition as envisaged under Section 3(1)(x). 7. Similar interpretation has also been made by Hon’ble Apex Court in Swarn Singh & Others vs. State through Standing Counsel & Another, (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527 and in Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446. In the first precedent, Hon’ble Apex Court has expressed that this is the age of democracy and equality. No people or community should be today insulted or looked down upon, and nobody’s feelings should be hurt. This is also the spirit of our Constitution and is part of its basic features. Our Constitution provides for equality, which includes special help and care for the oppressed and weaker sections of society who have been historically downtrodden. The SC/ST communities are also equal citizens of the country, and are entitled to a life of dignity in view of Article 21 of the Constitution. It has further been observed that whether the word “chamar” was used with intent to insult and humiliate a person belonging to that caste depends in the context in which it was used. The SC/ST communities are also equal citizens of the country, and are entitled to a life of dignity in view of Article 21 of the Constitution. It has further been observed that whether the word “chamar” was used with intent to insult and humiliate a person belonging to that caste depends in the context in which it was used. If it was used in a place within public view, then certainly the act is covered under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. 8. Similar view was expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah case, wherein it has been observed that in order to make out the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the incident complained of should certainly occur in a place within public view. 9. The place in the instant case where the incident allegedly occurred is a desolate one. Population is very scattered and it is also not the case of the prosecution that any other person of the surrounding locality was present at the spot, so Smt. Parvati Devi and other two ladies both named Smt. Sulochana Devi felt themselves humiliated as adumbrated in the said provisions of the Act. 10. In view of what has been discussed above, this Court feels that no offence, as is envisaged under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, is made out against the accused appellants. 11. As regards, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is concerned, it would be relevant to quote the language of the provisions contained therein. The same are reproduced below: “Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, assaults or uses force to any woman belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty.” 12. If at the time of incident, a little force was used in order to resist the aforenamed women from taking the water, certainly it cannot be inferred that the intention behind that was to dishonour or outrage their modesty. As such, no offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is made out against the accused appellants. 13. If at the time of incident, a little force was used in order to resist the aforenamed women from taking the water, certainly it cannot be inferred that the intention behind that was to dishonour or outrage their modesty. As such, no offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is made out against the accused appellants. 13. However, this Court feels that the accused appellants have rightly been convicted for the offences under Section 352, 504 and 506(2) IPC, but looking to the fact that accused and the complainant are neighbours and the incident occurred 13 years ago for taking water from a water post, therefore, in my view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment awarded to the accused appellants under Section 506(2) IPC is modified to the sentence of fine only. Accordingly, the same is modified to the sentence of fine of rupees five thousand each and the same shall be paid equally to all the aforenamed ladies (victims). This amount shall be paid within a period of two months from today. If this amount of fine is not deposited within the said period before the trial court, then the modified sentence of fine for the offence under Section 506(2) IPC shall be deemed to be otiose. Conviction and sentence awarded to the accused appellants for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act are hereby set aside. Rest of the sentences for the offences under Section 352 and 504 IPC are left intact. 14. Consequently, appeal is partly allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 9/11.7.2001 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Rudraprayag in Special Sessions Trial No. 5 of 2001, State vs. Devendra Singh & two others, stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. Let a copy of this judgment and order be sent to the trial court for its compliance. Lower court record be also sent back.