JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 7-7-1999, passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities), Narsinghpur in Special Case No. 16/1999, whereby the appellants, namely Laxman, Ajmer @ Kallu and Viran have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for brevity Act, 1989) and sentenced to undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, each and 6 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default of payment of fine further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each. 2. The prosecution story in brief is that, Munnalal (PW-1) is ‘Chamar’ by caste which falls under the Schedule Caste category. The appellants neither belong to Scheduled Caste nor Scheduled Tribe. On 18-9-1996, complainant- Munnalal (PW-1) was returning after taking bath from ‘Narmada’ river to his house, on the way the accused persons surrounded him at the instance of the accused-Khuman who has been acquitted by the trial Court. The accused persons inflicted injuries by ‘lathi’ (wooden stick) and fists. The complainant-Munnalal (PW-1) sustained injuries on his head, left calf and the palm of the hand and on the back. He also had fracture on the little finger of the left hand. He became unconscious. He was found in the field by Savitri Bai (PW-2) and Halki Bai (PW-6) on 19-6-1996. He was taken to the Police Station Gotegoan, District Narsinghpur and after lodging report (Exhibit-P/1) he was sent for medical examination. After accused persons were arrested, wooden sticks were seized from them in presence of witnesses. After completion of investigation charge-sheet has been filed. 3. The learned trial Court framed charges under section 325/34, 294 and 506 of Indian Penal Code and also under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 the accused persons abjured guilty. Accused No. 1- Khuman pleaded that he was on duty at Bikrampur Railway Station, Narsinghpur on 18-9-1996 from 9 A.M. till 5 P.M. The accused/appellant No. 3-Viran claimed that he was at his shop at the time of incident and pleaded that he is innocent. Accused No. 1- Khuman pleaded that he was on duty at Bikrampur Railway Station, Narsinghpur on 18-9-1996 from 9 A.M. till 5 P.M. The accused/appellant No. 3-Viran claimed that he was at his shop at the time of incident and pleaded that he is innocent. The learned trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 7-7-1999, after analyzing the evidence on the basis of the certificate (Annexure-D-4), held the presence of accused No. 1-Khuman at Railway Station which has not been contradicted by the prosecution, and acquitted him and sentenced other accused persons/appellant as mentioned above, for the offences under section 325/34 of Indian Penal Code and 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the accused persons have been falsely implicated. The deposition of Ram Prasad is not supported with the FIR and none of the witness persons were examined. Savitri Bai (PW-2) and Halki Bai (PW-6) haven’t seen the incident. The learned trial Court erred in law and facts, the entire story has been framed in order to meet the previous vengeance. As per the FIR no witness has seen the incident. The learned trial Court failed to evaluate the evidence in correct perspective. 5. On the other hand the learned Panel Lawyer for respondent/State opposing the arguments advanced, referring the incriminating pieces of evidence has submitted that the judgment impugned is well merited and does not call for any interference. 6. Munnalal (PW-1) is the complainant, as per his statement and which is supported by his sister-Savitri Bai (PW-2). The complainant belongs to member of ‘Chamar’ caste which is a Scheduled Caste community. But, no caste certificate has been obtained from the Competent Authority. Thus, non-production of caste certificate makes the prosecution suspicious. So far as it relates to offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989. 7. In Bharat Singh vs. State of M.P., reported in 2006(4) M.P.L.J. 171 it is held that in the Court statement the complainant deposed that he belongs to ‘Balai’ caste, but no where he has stated that his caste falls within the category of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes, and the appellant admitted that the complainant belongs to ‘Balai’ caste. But that itself is not sufficient to establish that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community. But that itself is not sufficient to establish that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community. Caste certificate from the Competent Authority not filed, therefore it is not established that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste community, otherwise also there is no other eye witness. The incident took place at the field and there has been no eye witness and the incident took place at public view has not been established. 8. To constitute an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, it is necessary to prove that the accused has insulted the complainant with an intention to humiliate him, because of being a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes in the public view. Merely, because there was utterance of word ‘Chamar’ without any intention shall not make out an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989, in this regard reference can be made to the cases of Shankerlal vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR 2013 (MP) 2457 and Sharad Kachhi vs. State of M.P. reported in 2005 (4) MPHT 30 . 9. As regarding the offence under the provisions of Indian Penal Code the statement of Munnalal-complainant can be examined. According to him the appellant No. 3-Viran had gone to the shop, earlier to the incident. Bhagwan Singh took out money from this witness, in this regard he lodged a report against Bhagwan Singh, therefore, accused-Viran was annoyed with the complainant. Accused-Viran threatened him to meet the consequences. 10. On the date of incident when the complainant-Munnalal was returning from the ‘Narmada’ river the accused persons surrounded him and assaulted him with ‘lathi’ (wooden stick) and inflicted injuries to him. He received injuries on the head, legs and ribs. Injuries inflicted by appellant No. 1-Laxman by ‘lathi’ caused fracture on his finger. Appellant No. 3-Viran inflicted injuries by wooden stick on his shoulder. The appellant No. 2- Ajmer @ Kallu inflicted injuries by ‘Farsa’ on the flat side on his back. Appellant No.1-Laxman also inflicted injuries on the legs by ‘lathi’, when the complainant received injuries on his skull he became unconscious and fell down. The accused persons threw him in the ‘Jowar’ field, where he was lying there throughout the night. On the next date his wife Halki Bai, Savitri Bai, his sister-in-law, Narmada Prasad, his brother and other neighbour came and took him to the Police Station Gotegoan, District Narsinghpur. The accused persons threw him in the ‘Jowar’ field, where he was lying there throughout the night. On the next date his wife Halki Bai, Savitri Bai, his sister-in-law, Narmada Prasad, his brother and other neighbour came and took him to the Police Station Gotegoan, District Narsinghpur. There he lodged report (Ex-P-1). 11. Savitri Bai (PW-2) and Halki Bai (PW-6) has stated that the incident occurred a year back. They had gone to work and returned in the evening. They came to know that the accused persons have assaulted Munnalal. But, Munnalal did not return to home. They had gone to Bikrampur Railway Station, Narsinghpur to search him. They searched till 2 A.M., but did not find him. 12. In the morning, at about 6 A.M. again started searching. At about 9 A.M. they found Munnalal lying in the field, he had sustained injuries on his head, legs, finger and blood was oozing out, Munnalal was unconscious, he was taken to Bikrampur Station and then was shifted to Gotegoan Police Station. When he was given some water to drink he regained consciousness and after lodging report he was sent to hospital. 13. Dinesh Kumar Dixit (PW-3), SHO, Gotegoan, District Narsinghpur has stated that on 19-9-1996, he was posted as SHO, Gotegoan, District Narsinghpur. Munnalal lodged report (Ex-P-1), as he has sustained several injuries, he was sent to Hospital for examination vide requisition Ex-P-2. Munnalal (PW-1) has stated that at Police Station Gotegoan, he had lodged report (Ex-P-1) from there he was sent to Hospital for examination. 14. Dr. Vinod Kumar Garg (PW-5) Assistant Surgeon posted at Gotegoan Hospital, on 19-9-1996. The Medical Officer has deposed that at about 1:30 P.M., Police Constable, Kaushal Kumar of Police Station Gotegoan brought Munnalal @ Ramprasad, aged about 30 years for examination. He has drawn report (Ex-P-2) and given the details of the injuries received by Munnalal. On examination following injuries were found on the body of Munnalal :— 1. Lacerated wound (7cm x 1cm) muscle deep on the right side of the parietal region. 2. Lacerated wound (4cm x 0.5cm) skin deep at the ear pinna. 3. Contusion and Swelling (11cm x 7cm) on the left 1/3rd upper leg, advised X-ray. 4. Contusion (8cm x 2cm) on the left side of sternum. 5. Contusion mark (8cm x 1cm) on the left scapula. 6. Contusion mark (5cm x 1 cm) in the left scapula. 2. Lacerated wound (4cm x 0.5cm) skin deep at the ear pinna. 3. Contusion and Swelling (11cm x 7cm) on the left 1/3rd upper leg, advised X-ray. 4. Contusion (8cm x 2cm) on the left side of sternum. 5. Contusion mark (8cm x 1cm) on the left scapula. 6. Contusion mark (5cm x 1 cm) in the left scapula. 7. Abrasion with Contusion (4cm x 2cm) on right scapula. 8. Contusion (13cm x 1cm) on the 1/3rd back in the left side. 9. Contusion (6cm x 1 cm) on the back of 1/3rd center part. 10. Contusion (5cm x 1cm) adjacent to the injures No. 9 on the mid part of the back side. 11. Contusion (6cm x 1 cm) on the right thigh upon knee. 12. Contusion on the right little finger advised X-ray. 15. He also opined that injuries No. 3, 4 and 12 were advised X-ray and all injuries were received by hard and blunt object, within 24 to 36 hours of his examination he referred to the patient to District Hospital, Narsinghpur vide Ex-P-5. 16. Dr. Chakradhar Singh (PW-7), is the Medical Officer on duty on 19-9-1996, at District Hospital, Narsinghpur. Police Constable-Vinod of Police Station Gotegoan, brought injured Munnalal @ Ramprasad for admission, therefore he admitted him as an indoor patient. The copy of bedhead ticket (Ex-P-6) and copy of Bed Ticket (Ex-P-7). As Dr. Garg referred for X-ray, the X-ray of Munnalal was conducted Ex-P-8 is the X-ray report. The X-ray plates are Ex-P-8/a. The medical report found fracture on the proximal phalanges, and fracture of tibia upper 1/3rd left leg. There was no bony injury on the chest. The evidence of Dr. Garg (PW-5) and Dr. Chakradhar Singh (PW-7) cannot be overlooked. Injuries received by Mannulal @ Ramprasad (PW-1) have been corroborated by this medical evidence. 17. Sarvitri Bai (PW-2) and Halki Bai (PW-6) were not the eye witness, but they found the injured unconscious and they saw the injuries. They have described the injuries which are supported by the injured-Munnalal @ Ramprasad and corroborated by the medical evidence. 18. These witnesses have also stated that when Munnalal regained consciousness he has narrated that the accused persons Khuman, Viran, Ajmer @ Kallu and Laxman inflicted injuries to him. They have described the injuries which are supported by the injured-Munnalal @ Ramprasad and corroborated by the medical evidence. 18. These witnesses have also stated that when Munnalal regained consciousness he has narrated that the accused persons Khuman, Viran, Ajmer @ Kallu and Laxman inflicted injuries to him. Munnalal was then admitted to the Hospital for 27 days, but no document has been produced in this regard that the patient was admitted for 27 days in the Hospital. 19. There has been few minor contradictions and omissions in the statement of Munnalal (PW-1), Savitri Bai (PW-2) and Halki Bai (PW-6), but these minor discrepancies are bound to come. In this regard reference can be made to case of Bharwada Bhagan Bhai vs. State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1983 SC 753 , Hon’ble Apex Court has held that we are, therefore, of the opinion if the evidence of the victim does not suffers from any infirmity and probative offender does not rendered it is unworthy of the credence. As a general rule, there is no reason to insist on the corroboration except on the medical evidence. 20. It would also appropriate to mention here that the case of Rambaksh vs. State of M.P. reported in 1961 M.P.L.J. Short Note 152, in which this Court has held that conviction can be held on the solitary witness, if his statement found to be reliable and does not indicate any discrepancy. Creditability and trustworthy witness ought to also to be attributed to the complainant who sustained serious injuries on his person, when the medical evidence support his statement. The very serious injury on his person could not be taken as self-inflicted. 21. The delay in lodging the FIR is explained properly. On the date of incident the complainant was seriously injured and became unconscious. According to Halki Bai (PW-6) when they could not find Munnalal, after searching they returned home on the next day at about 10 A.M., milkman of nearby village intimated them that Munnalal is lying in the field near ‘Nalah’, they rushed to the field and found Munnalal lying there injured. He was unconscious he was taken to Gotegoan Police Station and after he was made to drink water he regained conscious and lodged report. He was moved to hospital. He was unconscious he was taken to Gotegoan Police Station and after he was made to drink water he regained conscious and lodged report. He was moved to hospital. Therefore, the delay in lodging report seems to be genuine, even if it was lodged on 19-9-1996, a day after incident. The report (Ex-P-1), the MLC report (Ex-P-2) and X-ray report (Ex-P-8) cannot be questioned on these circumstances and the evidence prevailed in the case. 22. With the above discussion the injuries caused are grievous hurt. It is established that the appellants voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the complainant (Munnalal @ Ramprasad). Hence, the trial Court’s verdict of holding the accused persons guilty under section 325 of Indian Penal Code, cannot be said to be perverse. Therefore this Court affirms the conviction. 23. Considered on the point of sentence the learned trial Court has imposed 1 year rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- each, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, each for offence under section 325 of Indian Penal Code. The incident was of the year 1996, almost 19 years has been passed. In a similar case in Ramesh Kumar @ Babla vs. State of Punjab reported in 2016 SAR (Criminal) 669, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that in the case of offence under section 307 or 324 or 326 of the Indian Penal Code. The delay not proper to hold the appellant guilty of causing grievous injuries to the complainant, and hence for having voluntarily caused hurt by a dangerous weapon, he deserves to be convicted only for the offence under section 324 of Indian Penal Code, which is punishable with sentence of three years and/or with fine. Having said so the Hon’ble Apex Court held that in such circumstances it is not deemed necessary to send the accused immediately to jail custody after about 19 years of incident, when he appeared 50 years of age and fully settled in his life and ends of justice would be made by granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act to the appellants. 24. In the present case applying the same principles ends of justice would be met if benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is granted to the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to present before the trial Court within 30 days from today and on their executing a Bail Bond of Rs. 24. In the present case applying the same principles ends of justice would be met if benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is granted to the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to present before the trial Court within 30 days from today and on their executing a Bail Bond of Rs. 30,000/- and a surety to the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court, they be released on bail, to appear and received sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year when called upon to do so, and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. 25. With these aforesaid modifications in conviction and sentence this appeal is partly allowed.