JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. In this appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, ['Code' for short], the appellants have challenged the judgment and order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7, Bharuch, in Special Atrocity Case No. 12 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, while acquitting other accused person, the appellants came to be convicted as under: Sr. No. Section Punishment 1 Section 323 of IPC S.I. of one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine imprisonment for one month 2 Section 504 of IPC S.I. of one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine imprisonment for one month 3 Section 506(2) of IPC S.I. of two years with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine imprisonment for one month 4 Section 3(1)(X) of the Atrocity Act S.I. of one year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine imprisonment for one month All the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal as mentioned in paragraph No. 3 of the appeal are as under: 2.1. That on the day of the alleged incident, i.e. on 18th November, 1997 at around 10:00 p.m. Original complainant Rajesh Dhudabhai Vasava (PW-1) was at his residence with his friend Mahesh Vasava (PW-5) and Suresh Vasava at that time all the accused persons came to his house and PW-1 was dragged out of his house and was taken to the adjacent 'Falia' by the appellants. He was beaten with hockey stick by the appellants, filthy abuses were hurled at him. The appellants also threatened PW-1 with dire consequence, if he went to lodge a complaint. Though, the appellants know that PW-1 and his friends belong to Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes, with an intention to insult them in public view, foul words about the caste of PW-1 and his friends were spoken by the appellants. 2.2. The appellants also threatened PW-1 with dire consequence, if he went to lodge a complaint. Though, the appellants know that PW-1 and his friends belong to Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribes, with an intention to insult them in public view, foul words about the caste of PW-1 and his friends were spoken by the appellants. 2.2. PW-1 lodged a complaint in respect of this incident with Palej Police Station on basis of which FIR being II-C.R. No. 56 of 1997 was registered for offence punishable under Section 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short) and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('Atrocity Act' for short). 2.3. Upon conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against them in Court of Learned JMFC, Bharuch. As the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case under Section 209 of the Code to the Court of Sessions. 2.4. The charge was framed at Exh. 5 and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and came to be tried and so to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution led oral as well as documentary evidences and after evaluating the evidence, the learned Trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused as above. 2.5. The prosecution, adduced following documentary and ocular evidences to prove the guilt of the accused. ORAL AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EYE WITNESSE PW-1 Rajeshbhai Dhulabhai Vasava – Original complainant Exh.13 PW-2 Dhulabhai Chaganbhai Vasava – Complainant’s father Exh.15 PW-3 Revaben Mulabhai Vasava – Complainant’s mother Exh.16 PW-4 Maheshbhai Nagjibhai Vadand – Complainant’s friend Exh.17 PW-5 Maheshbhai Sanabhai Vasava – Complainant’s  friend Exh.19 MEDICAL EVIDENCE PW-7 Rashmikant Chimanlal Mehta – Medical officer who gave treatment to the complainant and prosecution Exh.23 Other Evidence PW-6 Parshottambhai Mahijibhai Solanki – Talati-cum-Mantri, Parkhet Exh.21 POLICE WITNESSES PW-8 Bhailalbhai Karsanbhai Patel – PSO Palej Police Station Exh.28 PW-9 Bachugiri Kalyangiry Goswami – Circle Police Inspector, in his presence complaint was given Exh.32 PW-10 Meghjibhai Bhimjibhai Pethano Exh.33 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE 1 Original complainant of complainant Rajeshbhai Dhulabhai Vasava Exh.14 2. Caste certificate given by the Talati-cum-Mantri Exh.22 3. Medical certificate of Maheshbhai Chhanabhai Vasava Exh.24 4. Medical certificates of Sureshbhai Sanabhai Vasava, Dhulabhai Chaganbhai Vasava and Rajesh Dhulabhai Vasava Exh.25 5. Closing pursis of Appellant Exh.36 2.6. Caste certificate given by the Talati-cum-Mantri Exh.22 3. Medical certificate of Maheshbhai Chhanabhai Vasava Exh.24 4. Medical certificates of Sureshbhai Sanabhai Vasava, Dhulabhai Chaganbhai Vasava and Rajesh Dhulabhai Vasava Exh.25 5. Closing pursis of Appellant Exh.36 2.6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the statement under Section 313 of the Code of the accused-appellants came to be recorded. The trial Court, after considering the evidence on record and arguments of learned APP and learned advocate for the accused, convicted the appellants accused of the charges by the impugned judgment and order. 3. I have heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Nirupam Nanavati with Mr. Jaivik Bhatt, learned advocate for the appellants and Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP for the respondent-State. I have also perused the record of Special Atrocity Case No. 12 of 2004. 4. Mr. Nanavati, learned senior counsel for the appellants submitted that the incident had happened on account of political dispute. He submitted that the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Atrocity Act cannot be said to have been committed by the appellants because there is no evidence, that the offence was committed only on the ground that PW-1 and his friends belong to Scheduled Caste. In support of his submission, relying upon the recent decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent decision dated 27th August, 2019 in case of Khuman Singh Versus State of Madhya Pradesh rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 1283 of 2019, he submitted that the learned Trial Judge has committed an error in convicting the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the Atrocity Act. According to his submission, the incident had not happened on the ground that PW-1 and his friends were members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. It is his further submission that because of the abuses and threats, PW-1 or the witnesses had felt threat and sense of hear was created in the mind of them. Hence, offence under Section 504, 506(2) of IPC cannot be said to have been made out against the appellants. So far as conviction under Section 323 of IPC is concerned, he submitted that the appellants do not propose to challenge their conviction under Section 323 of the IPC on merits. However, since the incident had happened around 21 years ago, the substantive sentence imposed on the appellants may be reduced to already undergone and amount of fine may be enhanced. 5. Mr. However, since the incident had happened around 21 years ago, the substantive sentence imposed on the appellants may be reduced to already undergone and amount of fine may be enhanced. 5. Mr. K.L. Pandya, learned APP has supported the impugned judgment. He submitted that the decision of Khumansing (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case according to his submission PW-1 and other material witnesses have fully supported the prosecution case. Hence, appeal may be dismissed. 6. The Supreme Court in the case of Khuman Singh (Supra), Supreme Court has held as under: "13. In Dinesh alias Buddha v. State of Rajasthan (2006) 3 SCC 771 , the Supreme Court held as under:- "15. Sine qua non for application of Section 3(2)(V) is that an offence must 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 case of the prosecution that the rape was committed on the victim since she was a member of Scheduled Caste. In the absence of evidence to that effect, Section 3(2)(V) of the Atrocities Act been applicable then by operation of law, the sentence would have been imprisonment for life and fine. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(V) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to "Khangar"-Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable. Insofar as the conviction under Section 302 IPC is concerned, as discussed earlier, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified as conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appellant-accused has been serving the sentence in jail for more than twelve years. Insofar as the conviction under Section 302 IPC is concerned, as discussed earlier, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is modified as conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC. The appellant-accused has been serving the sentence in jail for more than twelve years. As per the jail certificate issued by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Gwalior, the appellant has served the actual sentence in jail for more than twelve years (as on 04.07.2018) and as on date, he has served the sentence of more than thirteen years. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, for the conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC, the appellant is sentenced to undergo imprisonment to the period already undergone." 7. From the testimony of defacto complainant - PW-1 and PW-5, it emerges that the genesis of incident in respect of the election dispute. There is no iota of the evidence to indicate that PW-1 and his friends were abused by the appellants only on the ground that they were members of Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe. I am, therefore, of the view that the conviction of the appellants under Section 3(1)(X) of the Atrocity Act cannot be sustained. 8. Moreover, the evidence of PW-1 and PW-5 does not indicate that owing to the abuses and threats given by the appellants, a sense of hear was created in their mind. On the contrary, it emerges from the record that PW-1 had gone to lodge a complaint in Palej Police Station, immediately after the incident. If the abuses and threats given by the appellants created any fear in the mind of PW-1, he would not have gone to lodge a complaint. Hence, conviction under Section 504, 506(2) of the IPC can also not been sustained. 9. The incident had happened in the year 1997. It is clear form the evidence of witnesses that the incident had happened on account of political rivalry and election disputes. There is nothing to indicate that in the intervening period, the appellants conducted themselves not in any manner prejudicial to law and order nor they had come into conflicts with the police. 10. It emerges from the evidence of PW-1 to 5 that the appellant No. 1 was armed with hockey at the time of incident and the appellants have given kick and fist blows to PW-1 and other witnesses. The witnesses were examined by PW-7 Dr. 10. It emerges from the evidence of PW-1 to 5 that the appellant No. 1 was armed with hockey at the time of incident and the appellants have given kick and fist blows to PW-1 and other witnesses. The witnesses were examined by PW-7 Dr. Rashmikant Chimanlal Mehta, according to his opinion the complaint of pain made by the witnesses was possible by hard and blunt substance. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants have given kick and fist blows to PW-1 and other injured witness are thereby committed offence under Section 323 of Indian Penal code. 11. However, the incident had happened in the year 1997, it is clear from the evidence of witnesses that the incident had happened on account of political rivalry and election dispute. There is nothing to indicate that in the intervening period, the appellants have not conducted themselves in any manner prejudicial to law and order nor that they had come into conflicts with the police. Hence, considering overall facts, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if substantive sentence for offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is reduced to already undergone while enhancing the amount of fine. 12. Fine paid in respect of the offence under Section 504, 506(2) of IPC and 3(1)(X) of the Atrocity Act is ordered to be adjusted towards enhanced amount of fine. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal succeeds in part. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. 7, Bharuch, in Special Atrocity Case No. 12 of 2004 dated 30.12.2004 is quashed and set aside qua the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(X) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the offence under Section 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code. 14. So far the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, while upholding the conviction, substantive sentence for the said offence is modified to already undergone and punishment of amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- each from Rs. 500/- each imposed by the Trial Court. 14. So far the offence under Section 323 of the IPC is concerned, while upholding the conviction, substantive sentence for the said offence is modified to already undergone and punishment of amount of fine is enhanced to Rs. 2000/- each from Rs. 500/- each imposed by the Trial Court. The amount of fine paid for offence under Section 3(1)(X) of Atrocity Act as well as under Section 504 and Section 506(2) is ordered to be adjusted against enhanced amount of fine. 15. The appellants are on bail and hence, their bail bonds stands cancelled and surety, if any, stands discharged. 16. Record and proceedings is ordered to be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith.