JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal questions the judgement and order dated 21.06.2005 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under sections 504, 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code read with section 3(1)(10) of the the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [ for short ‘the Atrocity Act]. 2. An FIR came to be registered by Sarpanch of Gorisana Gram Panchyat: Chamar Dahyabhai Ramjibhai against the respondents, referring to the Regular Civil Suit No. 21 of 2004 pending in the court of Vadnagar, Civil Judge ( Junior Division), in relation to a strip of land between the plots comprised in Survey No. 85 of village Gorisana. The grievance is made in the complaint that despite the pendency of the civil suit, Chaudhary Virambhai Bhemjibhai, has closed the public by dumping the stones and closed the road. It is further stated in the complaint that on receipt of such information, the complainant proceeded to the scene of offence and interrogated Chaudhary Vimarjibhai Bhemjibhai, Chaudhary Bhikhabhai Kesharbhai and Chaudhary Jethabhai Ganeshbhai, etc., who gave elusive reply and told him not to ask such question to them. On the further request by the complainant, it is alleged in the complaint that the three persons named above got infuriated and used abusive language and derogated the complainant by caste name and told him, what if he is a Sarpanch, he can not order to them and that we will teach you lesson; use your authority to the extent possible; we have to our rescue our relative, member of legislature assembly and that you would not be able to do any wrong to us etc. 3. Upon investigation, a chargesheet was laid alleging the above referred offences against the respondents. 4. Charge was framed at Exh. 4 and upon the respondents denying the charge in their statement and seeking trial they were tried. The respondents allegedly quarreled and abused and threatened the complainant with life as also derogated him by his caste name. In the charge the knowledge that the complainant is the member of Scheduled Caste was attributed to the respondents and it has been alleged that the complainant was derogated in the caste name in public and has thus committed an offence under section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. In the charge the knowledge that the complainant is the member of Scheduled Caste was attributed to the respondents and it has been alleged that the complainant was derogated in the caste name in public and has thus committed an offence under section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Following oral and documentary evidences inter alia were produced during the trial. 1 Caste Certificate of the complainant Exh. 10 2 Complaint Exh. 11 3 Royalty cum delivery chalan Exh. 12 4 Ranjitji Rameshji Thakore Exh. 14 5 Fulabhai Chelanbhai Senma Exh. 15 6 Depute Order of P.S.O Exh. 16 7 Caste Certificate of accused no.1 Exh.21 8 Caste Certificate of accused no.2 Exh. 22 9 Caste Certificate of accused no. 3 Exh. 23 10 Bahadurdas Sangramdas Pandor-Investigation officer Exh. 24 6. While no appearance is made by respondents despite service of notice of this court, the learned APP has invited attention of this court to above referred oral and documentary evidences on record and has submitted that necessary ingredients of the provision were brought home by pointing out to the trial court in the oral evidence that the respondents had quarreled and abused and threatened the complainant with life as also derogated him by caste name. Learned APP drew attention of this court to the caste certificates of accused persons at Exh. 21, 22 23 and would contend that an evidence that the respondents were the members of the Chaudhary community which is not a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, was brought home, satisfying the ingredients of section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act. It was contended that derogatory utterance in public made by the respondents in caste name were established and therefore, reasons to the contrary recorded by the court below are perverse. The learned APP also assailed reasons recorded by the court below in para 16. It was submitted that delay in the lodgement of the FIR had occurred due to failed attempt to settle the matter with the accused persons, by the complainant. 7. Learned APP also contended that serious jurisdictional error was committed by the court below concentrating only on the pre existing litigation between the complainant and the respondents and or the pre existing enmity etc. rather than relying on the substantial part of the proceedings i.e. the charges against the respondents. 7. Learned APP also contended that serious jurisdictional error was committed by the court below concentrating only on the pre existing litigation between the complainant and the respondents and or the pre existing enmity etc. rather than relying on the substantial part of the proceedings i.e. the charges against the respondents. It was also contended that some minor contradictions have been given undue weightage by the court below and thus miscarriage of justice is caused. 8. It was contended that some of the official actions taken by the Sarpanch against the respondents were given undue colour of enmity between the complainant and the respondents. 9. Having considered the submission made by the learned APP it would be appropriate to refer to the sections 504 and 506(1) of the Indian Penal Code at this stage. To make out an offence under section 504; an intentional insult provoking a person with the intention or knowledge that by such provocation the victim is likely to cause the breach of public peace or commit other offence must be attributed and established. 10. For bringing home the guilt under section 503 of Indian Penal Code, there must be a criminal intimidation as defined in section 503 of IPC. It must be shown that a threat was executed to cause an injury to a person or his reputation or property or to any other person in which the victim is interested, with an intention to cause alarm to the victim so that victim concedes to the desires of the culprit, in a bid to avoid the execution of such threat. 11. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is noticed that general and vague terms have been used to establish quarrel, abuse and threat. Nowhere in the evidence, the intention to insult with a view to provoke the complainant with an intention or knowledge that the complainant would cause breach of public peace or would commit other offence, is borne out. It is not stated anywhere in the evidence as to what were the abuses hurled by the accused on the complainant. It is also not stated as to the nature of words used by the accused which provoked or on the basis of which, likelihood of provocation can be inferred. For section 504 to operate it is not enough to say that the complainant was “abused”. It is also not stated as to the nature of words used by the accused which provoked or on the basis of which, likelihood of provocation can be inferred. For section 504 to operate it is not enough to say that the complainant was “abused”. It is the nature of abuse which may be relevant for inferring the likelihood of provocation or intention or knowledge with the accused as indicated hereinabove. Thus in the opinion of this court no ingredients of section 504 of Indian Penal Code were satisfied in the evidence adduced by the appellant. 12. Similarly what is punishable under section 503 read with section 506(1) is the threat with an injury and mere oral utterances are not a threat with an injury. It would not be enough to say that “complainant was threatened”. For the said provision to operate, the threat must be real and apparent. The threat must be with an intention to cause alarm to victim. Thus the degree of threat would be relevant for section 503 of Indian Penal Code to operate. Nowhere in the evidence, the degree of threat is noticed. It is not indicated in the evidence the nature of alarm intended by the accused. It is stated in the vague terms that “accused threated me”. In the opinion of this court that is not sufficient for invoking section 503 of Indian Penal Code. 13. It would be relevant to refer to section 3(1)(10)) of the Atrocity Act at this stage in the context of the decision rendered in Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Others [ (2008) 12 SCC 531 ]. Section 3 commences with words “whoever, not being a member of Scheduled Caste or a Schedules T tribe.,” making it eloquently clear that the complaint can be lodged only against a person who is not be the member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe. The offence under the said provision would be made out only if he is not the member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. It would therefore be necessary for the prosecution not only to make clear in the FIR itself that the accused are not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but also to establish the said fact by cogent evidence. 14. It would therefore be necessary for the prosecution not only to make clear in the FIR itself that the accused are not members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, but also to establish the said fact by cogent evidence. 14. In Gorige Pentiah (supra), the FIR, lacking the averments above stated, came to be quashed, while holding that such averments in the FIR were necessary for triggering the section 3(1) of the Atrocity Act. 15. In the instant case, no averments are made in the FIR to the above effect, nor the deposition was given on that line by the eye witnesses. A faint attempt was made by the investigator to produce caste certificate of accused at Exh. 21, 22 and 23 wherein an averment is made that the accused belong to Chaudhary community. No attempt was made to establish that Chaudharys in the village in question do not constitute Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Mere production of the caste certificate that too; without required details was not sufficient to shift the burden under section 3(1) to the accused. Thus in the opinion of this court no case was made out even under section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act. 16. In addition to what has been stated by this court hereinabove, the trial court inter alia took into consideration the disharmony/discontents between the complainant and the accused persons for recording the order impugned. It also referred to civil suit pending between the parties and operation of the interim order in that suit and some of the official acts of the complainant. Moreover, the trial court was also rightly not satisfied with the nature of evidence required for establishing the ingredients of sections 504 and 506(1) of Indian Penal Code as well as section 3(1(10) of the Atrocity Act. 17. This court for the foregoing reasons is in complete agreement with the reasons recorded by the court below. No interference is required. The appeal must therefore fail. Accordingly it is dismissed. Record and Proceedings to be sent to the trial court.