JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Adarsh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Sageer Ahmad, learned AGA for the State/respondent and perused the record. 2. This criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Pream @ Bheem @ Pavan Kumar Yadav against the judgment and order dated 16.8.2016, passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act /Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, in Special S.T. No. 30 of 2012 (State v. Prem and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 257 of 2011, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 307 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine six months additional rigorous imprisonment. 3. The brief facts of this case are that on the basis of written report (Ex. Ka-1) given by the injured Manoj Kumar at Police Station Khaga, District Fatehpur on 19.9.2011 at 7:30 p.m., in respect of an incident, which had allegedly taken place on the same day at about 6:00 p.m., in which, according to the informant, the appellant had inflicted fire-arm injury on him by firing at him with his country made pistol with the intention of causing his death. 4. On the basis of the written report (Ex. Ka-1), chick FIR (Ex. Ka-6) and necessary G.D. entries were prepared vide G.D. report No. 53 by PW-6 Wali Ullah Khan. 5. In the written report (Ex. Ka-1), it was also alleged that the incident, in question, was preceded by another occurrence, in which, the appellant Pream @ Pawan Kumar Yadav, who was also the resident of same locality and a regular visitor to the shop of the informant, had broken open the lock of his shop, in which he was carrying on the business of manufacturing truck bodies and removed all the articles kept therein. 6. With regard to the aforesaid incident also, a case was filed by the informant against the appellant. 7. The injuries of the injured were examined on 19.2.2011 at about 9:00 p.m. by PW-3 Dr. S.K. Jaisal, who prepared his injury report Exhibit Ka-2. On his advise, the injuries received by the informant were x-rayed. The X-Ray report of the injured has been brought on record as Exhibit Ka-3. 8. The Investigating Officer, after concluding the investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ex. S.K. Jaisal, who prepared his injury report Exhibit Ka-2. On his advise, the injuries received by the informant were x-rayed. The X-Ray report of the injured has been brought on record as Exhibit Ka-3. 8. The Investigating Officer, after concluding the investigation, submitted charge-sheet (Ex. Ka-5) under Section 307 read with Section 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Fatehpur. Consequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge and it was registered as Special Sessions Trial No. 30 of 2012, fromwhere it was made over for trial to the Court of Special Judge, SC/ST Act /Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur. 9. Prosecution and the accused were heard on the point of charge by the Trial Court and prima facie ground was found existing for framing charges under Section 307 read with Section 506 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 Accordingly, charges were framed and explained to the accused, who abjured the charges and claimed trial. Consequently, the prosecution was asked to adduce its testimony, whereupon the prosecution, in order to establish the charges framed against the appellant, produced as many as six witnesses. 10. PW-1 Manoj Kumar and PW-2 Kuldeep Kumar were examined as eye-witness while PW-3 Dr. S.K. Jaisal, who had examined the injuries of the injured Manoj Kumar, PW-4 Dr. Sunil Kumar Kesarwani, who had conducted the X-Ray, PW-5 Munni Lal, the Investigating Officer and PW-6 Wali Ullah Khan, who had prepared the chik FIR were produced as formal witnesses. 11. The appellant, in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, had not denied the incident. He had stated that the informant Manoj Kumar had lured him into investing his money in his business of manufacturing truck bodies which he had misappropriated and in respect of aforesaid act of informant, a case had been registered against him at P.S. Naubasta, District Kanpur. 12. The prosecution, apart from leading the oral evidence also adduced documentary evidence for proving the charges framed against the appellant, which has been referred to and dealt with by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment, which need not to reproduced herein and to which we shall refer as and when the context so requires. 13. 12. The prosecution, apart from leading the oral evidence also adduced documentary evidence for proving the charges framed against the appellant, which has been referred to and dealt with by the learned Trial Judge in the impugned judgment, which need not to reproduced herein and to which we shall refer as and when the context so requires. 13. After considering the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and scrutinizing evidence brought on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant under the aforesaid Sections. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that even if the entire evidence on record, including injury report, X-Ray report of the injured and the medical evidence on record is accepted to be true and reliable, even then the offence, if any, proved to have been committed by the appellant does not travel beyond Section 324 IPC. 15. He further submitted that there being no allegation in the FIR that the appellant who belongs to upper caste had caused injury to the informant on the ground that the informant was a member of the Scheduled Caste and none of the witnesses having made any such deposition, the conviction of the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 16. He also submitted that during the trial, no question was put to the appellant by the Court that he had caused injuries to the informant knowingly and being fully aware of the fact that he belongs to the scheduled caste. 17. Per contra, learned AGA made his submissions in support of the impugned judgment and order. 18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties present and perused the entire record. 19. The only question, which arises for our consideration is that whether the prosecution has been able to prove its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts or not ? 20. In the incident, it is alleged that informant Manoj Kumar had received a fire-arm injury, author whereof was the appellant. The injuries of the informant were examined on 19.9.2011 at about 9:00 p.m. at Primary Health Centre, Fatehpur by PW-3 Dr. S.K. Jaisal, who had also prepared and proved his injury report (Ex. Ka-2). 20. In the incident, it is alleged that informant Manoj Kumar had received a fire-arm injury, author whereof was the appellant. The injuries of the informant were examined on 19.9.2011 at about 9:00 p.m. at Primary Health Centre, Fatehpur by PW-3 Dr. S.K. Jaisal, who had also prepared and proved his injury report (Ex. Ka-2). He noted following injuries on the person of the injured : (1) Lacerated wound 1 cm x 0.2 cm x skin deep on right side head, 6 cm above from right eyebrow. Bleeding present. (2) Fire-arm wound 1 cm x 1 cm on anterior and outer part of left arm, oval in shape, 13 cm below from left shoulder joint. Bleeding present. Blackening present 1 cm around the wound. Margin inverted. Injury is KUO and advised X-Ray left arm. (3) Lacerated wound 0.5 cm x 0.5 cm, oval in shape on left arm 13 cm below from left shoulder joint. Bleeding present. Margin everted. Injury is KUO and advised X-Ray left arm, wound position on outer and back part of left arm. Opinion : Injury No. 1 is simple and caused by hard and blunt object. Injury No. 2 and 3 are caused by fire-arm weapon. Injury No. 2 and 3 are KUO and advised X-Ray left arm and referred to District Hospital, Fatehpur for X-Ray and expert opinion. Duration fresh. X-Ray of the injuries of Manoj Kumar indicates that neither any bony injury was found on the person of the victim nor any pellet was found. 21. We have very carefully scanned the statements of PW-3 Dr. S.K. Jaisal, who had prepared the injury report and PW-4 Dr. Sunil Kumar Kesarwani, who had done the X-Ray of internal injury and they have stated that the injuries found on the person of the victim were neither dangerous to his life nor on any vital part of the body. No supplementary injury report of the injured informant was filed as is evident from the statement of PW-3 Sr. S.K. Jaisal as deposed at page No. 32 of the paper book. Thus, the offence committed by the appellant does not fall under Section 307 IPC. 22. No supplementary injury report of the injured informant was filed as is evident from the statement of PW-3 Sr. S.K. Jaisal as deposed at page No. 32 of the paper book. Thus, the offence committed by the appellant does not fall under Section 307 IPC. 22. A perusal of the evidence on record further does not indicate that the prosecution has been able to prove/establish the necessary ingredients, which constitute an offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the appellant. 23. In this regard, it would be useful to reproduce Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 herein below : “Section 3(2)(v). commits any offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property on the ground that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.” 24. We have very carefully gone through the FIR as well as statements of the PW-1 and PW-2 and we have found that there is no allegation either in the FIR or in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 to the effect that the appellant had caused fire-arm injuries to the informant on the ground or knowingly that he was a member of the Scheduled Castes. The perusal of the examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC further shows that no question was put to him during his examination under Section 313 CrPC in this regard. 25. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh @ Buddha v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 2006 SC 1267 , has held that for application of Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, offence must be shown to have been committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case, no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not the case of the prosecution that the offence was committed because the victim was a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the instant case, no evidence has been led to establish this requirement. It is not the case of the prosecution that the offence was committed because the victim was a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In the absence of any evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 has no application. As such, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove the charge framed against the appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while his conviction under Section 307 IPC deserves to be converted to one under Section 324 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to him for the offence under Section 307 IPC palliated to a sentence of lesser period. 26. We accordingly acquit the appellant of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, while his conviction under Section 307 IPC is converted to one under Section 324 IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life awarded to him by the Trial Court is palliated to three years’ rigorous imprisonment together with fine of Rs. 2,500. In default of payment of fine, the appellant shall be liable to undergo additional imprisonment for six month’s. The appellant is on bail. He shall be taken into custody forthwith and sent to jail for serving out the remaining part, if any, of the modified sentence. 27. The appeal is partly allowed.