JUDGMENT : ANAND BYRAREDDY, J. 1. Heard the learned Government Pleader. 2. The State is in appeal questioning the acquittal of the accused. It is stated that on 22/12/2012 at about 8.30 p.m. in Indumangala Village, Malur Taluk, when the complainant and her husband were discussing and talking amongst themselves near Yallamma Temple, accused Narayanaswamy is said to have come there and picked up a quarrel and demanded to know what they were discussing about and that he had heard them discussing about panchayat matters and they had no business to discuss as the matters had immediately punched the complainant's husband on the face and at that time when the complainant questioned him, he tried to throttle her neck. The accused was said to be member of a community other than Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and therefore he had insulted them by abusing them in foul language in a manner, derogatory to their caste in public view and since the complainant and her husband belong to a Scheduled Caste, a case was registered on the basis of the above allegations and further proceedings had ensued. 3. Having pleaded not guilty and having came to be tried, prosecution tendered evidence of seven witnesses and marked several exhibits. The court below had framed the following points for consideration and answered the same in the negative: 1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond all reasonable doubt that on 22/12/2012 at about 8.30 p.m., near Yallamma temple of Indumangala village, Malur Taluk, accused picked up quarrel with CW2 Ramanji and held his collar, at that time CW1 Savithramma came there and asked as to why he is assaulting CW2, for that accused squeezed the neck of CW 1 and voluntarily caused hurt to them and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 323 of Indian Penal Code? 2. Whether the prosecution proves that accused intentionally insulted CW1 & 2 and thereby gave provocation to them intending that such provocation would cause the said CW 1 & 2 to break the public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 504 of IPC? 3. Whether the prosecution proves that accused not being the member of SC/ST community, intentionally insulted, humiliated and abused CW 1 & 2 who belongs to Scheduled Caste in filthy language by touching their case by saying. 3. Whether the prosecution proves that accused not being the member of SC/ST community, intentionally insulted, humiliated and abused CW 1 & 2 who belongs to Scheduled Caste in filthy language by touching their case by saying. VERNACULAR MATTER within the public view and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act? 4. Whether the prosecution proves that accused not being the member of SC/ST community, used criminal force on CW 1 Smt. Savithramma, a woman belonging to scheduled caste with intent to dishonour her modesty and thereby committed an offence punishable Under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (POA) Act? 5. What Order? 4. It was the court's finding on the basis of the evidence that PW-1 had claimed that her husband and she were assaulted at about 11.30 a.m. in the morning near water pond and that the accused had used foul language touching upon the caste of the complainant and thereby had humiliated them in public view and that the accused had assaulted on the waist, neck and back of her husband and also tried to throttle her. PW-2, the husband of the complainant also reiterated the allegations while indicating that there were 180 coolie workers who were engaged in coolie work at that point of time on that spot and when they demanded remuneration that was due to them, the accused had become enraged and had attacked him and his wife, and had refused to part with the money on behalf of the panchayat and that the son of the accused and a relative by name Pramod had assaulted him and when his wife sought to intervene, they had assaulted her as well and had tried to throttle her. 5. This, the court below found, was contrary to the evidence of the complainant where she had not mentioned about the son of the accused or the relative Pramod of having attacked her and her husband and further the overt act of the accused having assaulted the said witness PW-1, the complainant and her husband PW-2 or trying to throttle PW-1, was not spoken to by any other independent witness, though it was claimed that there were 180 workers engaged in coolie work at that spot at that point of time and therefore the Court has disbelieved the version of the prosecution, having regard to the inconsistent evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Further, insofar as the injuries as described by PW-3, the Doctor who had examined the complainant, it was also found that the injuries were inconsistent and also the time of the incident being inconsistently stated as being 11.30 a.m. or 7 p.m. Therefore the court has found that the evidence of other witnesses was equally inconsistent and hence held that the prosecution had failed to establish it's case beyond all reasonable doubts. There is no fault to be found with the finding of the court below in the face of such inconsistent evidence and the lack of other independent witnesses which was available and which could have been produced. Consequently, appeal lacks merit and is rejected. 6. The application for condonation of delay, therefore is irrelevant and hence rejected.