JUDGMENT : N.K. GUPTA, J. 1. The State has preferred the present appeal being aggrieved with the judgment dated 28.9.2001 passed by the Special Judge under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Damoh in special case No. 147/2000, whereby the respondent was acquitted of the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities), Act (hereinafter it will be referred to as "Special Act"). The prosecution's case, in short, is that, on 21.10.2000. at about 12 in the noon, the complainant Ram Prasad (P.W.2) went to the hotel of the respondent at village Futerakala, (Police Station Batiyagarh, District Damoh) to take some tea. The respondent shouted upon the complainant that being a Chamar by caste why he sat on the chair and thereafter, assaulted him with a bat. Thereafter, the complainant had lodged an FIR, Ex. P/2 and he was sent for his medico legal examination. Dr. K.L. Adarsh (P.W.I) had examined the complainant and gave his report, Ex. P/1. He found one contusion on right temporal region of the complainant caused within 12 hours by hard and blunt object. After due investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before JMFC, Hatta, who committed the case to the Special Court. 2. The respondent abjured his guilt. He took a plea that he was falsely implicated in the matter. 3. During the pendency of the trial, the complainant has filed an application for compromise and therefore, due to compromise, charges of offence under Sections 294, 323 of IPC were abated. The trial Court after considering the prosecution's evidence, acquitted the respondent. 4. Since no one was appearing for the respondent and appeal of the year 2000 is 14 years old and therefore, out of the panel of High Court Legal Services Committee, Shri G.S. Thakur, Advocate, who has vast experience in dealing with criminal cases, is appointed to argue the matter on behalf of the respondent and thereafter, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. In the present case, it is apparent that a quarrel took place between the parties and the respondent assaulted the victim with a bat, causing a simple injury on his left temporal region. However, due to compromise, charge of offence under Section 323 of IPC was abated. Ram Prasad (P.W.2) has stated that the respondent objected his sitting on chair in his hotel because of caste. However, due to compromise, charge of offence under Section 323 of IPC was abated. Ram Prasad (P.W.2) has stated that the respondent objected his sitting on chair in his hotel because of caste. However, eye witnesses Pannal Lal (P.W.3), Basant Kumar (P.W.4), Rajendra (P.W5) and Pooranlal (P.W.8) have turned hostile. Nobody confirmed the allegation made by the complainant Ram Prasad. Ram Prasad in his cross-examination has accepted that various villagers including the respondent were fed up with the attitude of the complainant that he was in habit to take debts from various persons and not to repay. When loan was demanded for repayment then, he was in habit to give a threat that such money lenders would be implicated in a false case of Special Act. He has also accepted that various people of the village alongwith the respondent went to Police Station Batiyagarh and the respondent had lodged an FIR against the complainant and a case was pending against the complainant at Magisterial Court, Hatta. 6. On admission given by the complainant, it is apparent that the complainant was well known to the respondent and the complainant took loans from the respondent from time to time. When the respondent had given a loan to the complainant then, he did not have any hatred with the complainant on the basis of his caste. Possibility cannot be ruled out that the respondent objected the entrance of the complainant in the shop because of his attitude and behavior, it cannot be said that any insult was caused of the complainant on the basis of the caste. Incident was caused due to previous behavior and attitude of the complainant. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, no offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Special Act is made out against the respondent. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charge. There is no substance in the State appeal, so that it can be accepted. Consequently, the State appeal filed against the respondent is hereby dismissed by confirming the judgment passed by the trial Court. 8. The respondent is on bail. His presence is no more required before this Court and therefore, it is directed that his bail bonds shall stand discharged. A copy of the judgment be sent to the trial Court alongwith its record for information and compliance. Dismissed.