JUDGMENT : Z.A. Haq, J. Heard Shri S.S. Doifode, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and Shri M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate for the respondent. 2. State of Maharashtra has filed the appeal challenging the judgment passed by the learned Special Judge acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 163 and 164 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. The case of the prosecution is : On 14-12-1999 at about 4.00 p.m., the accused obstructed the complainant - Aawadtabai Sahadeo Shamkule when she was taking she-buffaloes to cattle pond and the accused intentionally insulted her by abusing her on her caste. According to the complainant, the accused was knowing that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste and to humiliate her the accused had abused the complainant at a public place in public view. The accused had assaulted the complainant by fist and blows after felling her down by holding her hair. The incident was witnessed by some villagers. The complainant lodged report with the police station, the crime was registered, the investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate. As the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed, read over and explained in vernacular to the accused. The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried. The learned Special Judge conducted the trial and by the impugned judgment concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had abused the complainant on her caste with intention to humiliate her, in public view at a public place. The learned Special Judge concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had assaulted the complainant and had hurt her. The learned Special Judge acquitted the accused. 4. With the assistance of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant and the learned Advocate for the respondent, I have examined the record. 5. The report (Exhibit No.15) lodged by the complainant on 14-12-1999 shows that the complainant had complained that the accused obstructed her and insulted by giving abuses and assaulted her. The report does not contain any averment which can constitute an abuse relating to the caste of the complainant. 5. The report (Exhibit No.15) lodged by the complainant on 14-12-1999 shows that the complainant had complained that the accused obstructed her and insulted by giving abuses and assaulted her. The report does not contain any averment which can constitute an abuse relating to the caste of the complainant. The averments regarding abuses on the caste of the complainant are found in the second report dated 19-12-1999. The prosecution has not explained the necessity of recording the second report. The statements of the witnesses were recorded after receipt of the report dated 14-12-1999 and after receipt of the report dated 19-12-1999 again the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The medical examination report of the complainant is not on record. The learned Special Judge has doubted the claim of the complainant that the accused continued the assault for about fifteen minutes, observing that if the assault had continued for fifteen minutes in the presence of villagers as alleged, someone might have intervened. 6. The learned Special Judge has scrutinised the evidence and other material on record properly and has recorded that the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond doubt that the accused is guilty of commission of offence for which he was charged. The conclusions of the learned Special Judge are based on proper appreciation of the evidence and other material on the record and it cannot be said that there is any error or perversity in the conclusions of the learned Special Judge. I see no reason to interfere with the judgment. The appeal is dismissed.