JUDGMENT This appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 30.08.2001 passed in the Special Case No.34/1995 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal, whereby appellant came to be convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.L for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.L for two months for offence under Section 354 of the I.P.C. imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer R.I. for two months for the offence punishable under Section 452 of the I.P.C., imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to suffer R.I. for one month. However, accused is acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. In brief the prosecution story is that on 06.02.1995 Maroti, minor son of complainant Sau. Parvatibai had been to the field for grazing cattle. Accused asked complainant's son Maroti why he is grazing cattle at a particular place. Saying so, accused beat Maroti by sticks and fist blows. Maroti, therefore, came to the house while weeping along with his cattle at about 10:00 a.m. and narrated the incident to his mother Sau. Parvatibai. Accused also followed Maroti to the house, and on entering the house, raised quarrel and man-handled the complainant by catching her hand due to which her bangles were broken and in the course of said transaction accused had removed her saree thereby outraging her modesty. Maroti raised shouts due to which neighbour P.W.3 Vijay Rathod came on the spot. 3. Sau. Parvatibai lodged report about this incident on the same day at about 8:10 p.m. with Police Station Pandharkawada. On the basis of report, Crime No.40/1995 came to be registered during the course of investigation, Sau. Parvatibai as well as her son Maroti were referred for medical examination and on completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed before the learned J.M.F.C., Kelapur Court. 4. In the course of time case came to be committed to the Court of Session for trial. Parvatibai as well as her son Maroti were referred for medical examination and on completion of investigation, chargesheet came to be filed before the learned J.M.F.C., Kelapur Court. 4. In the course of time case came to be committed to the Court of Session for trial. Charges were framed against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452, 323 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (x) and 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to which accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried. The defence of accused is of total denial. It is the case of accused that he came to be implicated in a false case at the instance of P.W.3 Vijay Rathod as they were on inimical terms. 5. The learned Trial Court, on considering the evidence on record convicted accused as aforesaid hence, this appeal. 6. Heard learned counsel Shri Daga for the appellant and Shri Laddhad, learned A.P.P. for the State. To effectively evaluate the submission advanced by the learned counsels for both sides, I have scrutinized the evidence on record with their assistance. 7. Complainant Sau. Parvatibai has stated that incident took place prior to 6 years. At about 9:00 a.m. when her son Maroti had gone to graze the cattle and had returned back weeping at around 10:00 a.m. and informed the complainant that accused had beaten him in the field, by sticks, fists and kick blows. She further stated that at the same time accused came to her house and man-handled her and had released her saree by holding her hand due to which her bangles were broken. She has further stated that Maroti raised shouts upon which P.W.3 Vijay Rathod and other neighbours arrived on the spot when accused ran away. Complainant further stated about her lodging report with Police, at Exh.20. 8. In the cross-examination complainant admitted that the Tanda where her house is situated is at a distance of one mile from village Runza, where there is police outpost. She had denied that she has lodged report in consultation with Vijay Rathod. She admits that report is lodged at Pandharkawada Police Station on the same day in the evening. 8. In the cross-examination complainant admitted that the Tanda where her house is situated is at a distance of one mile from village Runza, where there is police outpost. She had denied that she has lodged report in consultation with Vijay Rathod. She admits that report is lodged at Pandharkawada Police Station on the same day in the evening. She admits that on reaching to Police Station P.W.3 Vijay Rathod had not stated anything to Head Constable Kadam and also admits that she has not stated anything to said Head Constable. She further stated that she has narrated the contents of report to one Police Constable and has further specifically stated that she herself had insisted the Constable to scribe the report as per the incident against the accused and accordingly after the report was scribed she put her thumb mark. Above piece of evidence of complainant raises doubt and in fact, substantiate the case of the appellant about false report being lodged by complainant on the say of Vijay Rathod as it appears that complainant had informed the Constable to scribe the report against the accused, so also the incident. Contrary to the evidence of complainant, evidence of P.W.5 Kamal Surpam, A.S.I., Buckle No.979 reveals that on the basis of said report he has registered the offence and has admitted that complainant had brought written report to the Police Station. In view of admission as above by this witness it thus appears that, report Exh.20 on record is not that of complainant Sau. Parvatibai. Even otherwise from her own evidence it reveals that the author of said report is one Head Constable who was instructed by the complainant to scribe the same and also to mention about incident therein. Admittedly prosecution has not examined said Head Constable. As such said evidence, in fact substantiates the defence of accused being falsely implicated on the say of P.W.3 Vijay Rathod, as complainant has admitted that Vijay Rathod had accompanied her to Police Station. 9. Evidence of P.W.2 Maroti is to the effect that he was subjected to beating by the accused in the field and therefore, he returned home weeping and informed about incident of assault upon him at the hands of accused to his mother complainant. He further stated that accused followed to his house and released complainants saree. 9. Evidence of P.W.2 Maroti is to the effect that he was subjected to beating by the accused in the field and therefore, he returned home weeping and informed about incident of assault upon him at the hands of accused to his mother complainant. He further stated that accused followed to his house and released complainants saree. He further stated that he raised shouts and therefore, neighbourers gathered including P.W.3 Vijay Rathod due to which accused ran away. He further stated about he being referred to Doctor for medical examination by the Police. When evidence of P. W.2 Maroti and P.W.1 Sau. Parvatibai, the complaint is considered on the aspect of incident of alleged outraging modesty of complainant by accused evidence of Maroti is totally silent about accused catching hand of complainant, breaking of bangles as deposed by her. Moreover, though it is the case of prosecution as deposed by P. W.1 Sau. Parvatibai and P.W.2 Maroti about their sustaining injuries and since both these witnesses, during the course of investigation were referred for their medical examination, medical reports of Maroti at Exh.36 does not support the case of the prosecution, as according to this certificate, Maroti is certified to have been clinically examined and no injuries is found on his body. Maroti is examined on 08.02.1995. Since it is the case of prosecution that he is subjected to assault by accused by sticks, fists and kick blows in the field, he would have had definitely sustained some injuries on his person. However, no explanation is coming forward by prosecution on this aspect of the matter. Similarly, thought it is the evidence of Sau. Parvatibai that accused on entering her house man-handled by catching her hand, removed her saree when her bangles broke away. Her medical certificate Exh.38 on record, does not support her version which states that she has sustained one abrasion on the left forearm near wrist sustained by her prior to 24 hrs. Having considering the fact that Sau. Parvatibai was examined on 08.05.1995, though the incident which was occurred on 06.02.1995 and considering probable age of injury which is certified to be of more than 24 hrs., to some extent said certificate can said to be establishing the case of prosecution about Sau. Parvatibai sustaining abrasion, however further contents to said certificate reveals that the abrasion sustained by Sau. Parvatibai sustaining abrasion, however further contents to said certificate reveals that the abrasion sustained by Sau. Parvatibai is by hard and blunt object, while the broken bangles cannot said to be hard and blunt object. In the circumstances, it is difficult to say that the old healed abrasion sustain by complainant is due to broken, piece of bangle. 10. From the evidence of P.W.3 Vijay Rathod it appears that he has lodged report vide Exh.25 dated 10.02.1995 against the father of the accused. On perusal of his evidence, it appears that his relation with accused are strained. In fact, said aspect is admitted by P. W.2 Maroti when he has admitted that at the time of incident there was a dispute between accused and P.W.3 Vijay Rathod. In that view of the matter and for the reasons already stated above, I find much substance when it is suggested that accused is falsely involved by complainant, though the suggestion is denied by this witness. 11. Accused to substantiate his case had examined D.W.1 Surekha Meshram and D.W.2 Namdeo, who had stated that at time of incident Sau. Parvatibai was residing as their neighbour, while on the day of incident she was abusing him and thus accused had questioned her as to why she is abusing upon which D.W.1 Surekha Meshram told accused to proceed to his field and accordingly he went away. There is nothing in the cross-examination of defence witnesses as to doubt these witnesses. 12. In the background of above discussed evidence and for the reasons, has stated above the order of conviction and sentenced imposed upon the accused by the learned Trial Court does not sustain as prosecution has failed to establish the charge against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment and order is thus, liable to be quashed and set aside. In the circumstances, the appeal succeeds. Hence, the following order is passed: Appeal is allowed. The judgment and order dated 30.08.2001 convicting accused for the offences punishable under Section 354, 452, 323 of the I.P.C. is hereby quashed and set aside and the accused is acquitted of the offences for which he was charged and convicted. His bail bond stand cancelled. Appeal allowed.