JUDGMENT : Mr. Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. 1. The accused-appellants have preferred this Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.1994 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Dholpur in Special Sessions Case No.14/1993 whereby the learned trial Court after convicting the appellants for offence under Section 323 IPC sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also convicted them for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and in default thereof to further suffer simple imprisonment for fifteen days. It was further ordered that both the substantive sentences would run concurrently. 2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that complainant-Shri Shivcharan filed a written complaint (Ex.P4) against appellants on 10.9.1992 before Judicial Magistrate, Badi (District Dholpur) for offences under Sections 427, 379, 323 IPC and for offence under Section 3 of the Act with the allegation that in the morning of 10.9.1992 at about 7.00 a.m. when he along with his wife and son was working at their agriculture land, appellants came there armed with Lathis and Hasiya and abused him, his wife and son in filthy language and also abused them with their caste name. It was further alleged that appellants tried to cut their standing crop which was objected by them upon which appellants inflicted injury to the complainant and when his wife and son intervened they were also beaten. It was further alleged that one Shri Ram Khiladi and Ramdayal came at the place of incident and on their intervention they were spared. It was alleged in the complaint that the appellants not only destroyed the crop of complainant but also took away Barley (Bajra) crop. The written complaint so filed by the complainant was sent by the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Sarmathura where FIR No.140/1992 was registered for the aforesaid offences on 11.9.1992. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for offences under Sections 323, 341, 427 IPC and for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The written complaint so filed by the complainant was sent by the Court under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. to Police Station Sarmathura where FIR No.140/1992 was registered for the aforesaid offences on 11.9.1992. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the appellants for offences under Sections 323, 341, 427 IPC and for offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellants for offences under Sections 447 and 323 IPC and for offence under Section 3 (1) (v) and (x) of the Act and in order to prove the charge prosecution produced oral as well as documentary evidence. Appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution but in defence no evidence was produced but during cross-examination statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of four prosecution witnesses were got examined. Learned trial Court after considering the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence made available on record acquitted the appellants for offence under Section 447 IPC and for offence under Section 3 (1) (v) of the Act but convicted and sentenced them as already stated. 3. Assailing the findings of the trial Court learned counsel for the appellants inviting attention of the Court towards some of the admissions made by the complainant-PW2-Shri Shivcharan in his cross-examination submitted that it is an admitted fact that at the time of the alleged incident the “Nechi” situated on the agriculture land of the complainant was in peaceful possession of the appellants for several past years and they were using it to fetch water from their well and, therefore, possibility cannot be rule out that false allegations were made against the appellants in order to pressurize them to hand over possession of the “Nechi” to complainant. It was further submitted that complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that he wants to close the “Nechi” and for the same reason dispute exists between them. It was also submitted that there are several material contradictions interse between the statements of prosecution witnesses and they have improved their version of the incident with regard to several aspects of the incident during the course of trial in comparison to their statements recorded during the course of investigation and the facts mentioned in the complaint. It was also submitted that there are several material contradictions interse between the statements of prosecution witnesses and they have improved their version of the incident with regard to several aspects of the incident during the course of trial in comparison to their statements recorded during the course of investigation and the facts mentioned in the complaint. It was submitted that in order to make out an offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act it is essential that a member of scheduled caste is abused by his caste name with intention to humiliate and embarrass him in a public view but in the present case looking to the place of incident, which is admittedly agriculture land of the complainant, it cannot be said that appellants abused the complainant and his family members with their caste name in public view but the learned trial Court did not consider this aspect of the case in a proper perspective. 4. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor defending the impugned judgment and order, submitted that there is ample evidence available on record showing that appellants not only inflicted injuries to the members of the complainant party but also abused them by their caste name in presence of PW5-Shri Ram Khildari and PW6-Shri Ramdayal and, therefore, it cannot be said that the legal requirement to abuse in public view is not fulfilled in the present case. 5. On consideration of submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and the evidence produced during the course of trial as well as the relevant legal provisions, I do not find any illegality, perversity or infirmity in the impugned judgment requiring interference by this Court. From oral as well as documentary evidence available on record it is clear that simple injuries were caused by the appellants not only to complainant PW2-Shri Shivcharan but also to his wife PW3-Smt. Sua Bai and his son PW4- Shri Nekram. As per the statement of PW1-Dr. Ramswaroop Meena and injury reports prepared by him on 10.9.1992 as Ex.P1, Ex.P2, Ex.P3, 1 and 7 injuries were found on the body of Shri Shivcharan, Smt. Sua Bai and Shri Nekram respectively. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of these witnesses so as to doubt that these injuries were caused by the appellants. Not only that, PW5-Shri Ram Khilari and PW6-Shri Ramdayal have also supported the prosecution case. Nothing has come in the cross-examination of these witnesses so as to doubt that these injuries were caused by the appellants. Not only that, PW5-Shri Ram Khilari and PW6-Shri Ramdayal have also supported the prosecution case. Merely because complainant PW2-Shri Shivcharan in his cross-examination has admitted that the “Nechi”, a place to fetch water from a well with the help of bull, was made by the appellants in his agriculture land with his consent about 25 years back and since then it was in their possession and appellants were using it to fetch water from their well and presently he wants to close the “Nechi” and, therefore, dispute has arisen between them in this regard, it cannot be said that the false allegations have been made against the appellants to pressurize them so that they hand over the “Nechi” part of the agriculture land of the complainant to him because while so admitting at the same time it has been clarified by the complainant that on the date of incident the dispute between them arose not due to his objection regarding “Nechi” but appellants tried to cut his crop. Even if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that on the date of incident also complainant and his family members objected use of “Nechi” by appellants even then the appellants had no right to inflict injuries to them. Nothing has come on record to show that the injuries found on the bodies of complainant party were self inflicted or were sustained in any other manner. So far as abusing the complainant party with their caste name is concerned, not only complainant and both of his family members but also PW5-Shri Ram Khildari and PW6-Shri Ramdayal in clear terms have stated that the complainant party was abused by their caste name. As the entire incident occurred in presence of Shri Ram Khilari and Shri Ramdayal, not family members of the complainant party, in the present case it cannot be said that essential requirement of abuse in public view is not fulfilled merely because the incident occurred in the agriculture land of the complainant. In the cross-examination of Shri Ram Khilari and Shri Ramdayal nothing has come doubting their presence at the time of alleged incident. In the cross-examination of Shri Ram Khilari and Shri Ramdayal nothing has come doubting their presence at the time of alleged incident. From the perusal of impugned judgment it is clear that the appellants have been held guilty for the aforesaid offences after properly appreciating and evaluating the evidence made available on record. So far as sentence part of the order is concerned, imprisonment for one month cannot be said to be inappropriate or excessive looking to the number of injuries caused to the complainant party. Similarly, the appellants have been sentenced for the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act in which also interference by this Court could not be made. 6. Consequently, the appeal being meritless is, hereby, dismissed. The appellants are presently on bail and, therefore, they are directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before 06.04.2017, so that, they can be sent to the concerned jail in order to serve the sentence awarded to them. In case the appellants fail to appear, appropriate steps would be taken by the trial Court provided by law for the appearance of the appellants before it so that they can serve the sentence imposed upon them.