JUDGMENT G.Sri Devi, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge for trial of Cases under S.Cs & S.Ts. (POA) Act-cumVIII Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, in Sessions Case No.31 of 2009 dated 06.05.2011, whereby the appellant-A-1 was convicted of the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 323 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and he was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months for the offence under Section 323 of I.P.C. However, A-2 to A-5 were found not guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 323 of I.P.C. and were acquitted of the said offences. 2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused, in brief, is that on 10.05.2009 at 11.00 P.M. while P.W.1-Mala Jangam Suguna, wife of Mallesham, was scolding her younger sister Jangam Kalyani (P.W.3) as she was not doing any household work, A-1 to A-5 by thinking that P.W.1 is scolding them, came to her house and attacked them and caught hold the saree of P.W.1 and dragged her and then A-1 caught hold the hand of P.W.1, beat her and threatened her with dire consequences and also kicked P.W.3 on her stomach. P.W.1 also stated in the complaint that when her father tried to intervene to rescue them, the accused thrashed him and abused him by his caste name "as nee mala kollena dengutha mala lanjakoduka". 3. The plea of the appellant-A1 is one of total denial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 was marked. 4. 3. The plea of the appellant-A1 is one of total denial. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined P.Ws.1 to 9 and got marked Exs.P1 to P9. On behalf of the accused, Ex.D1 was marked. 4. The Special Judge, on appraisal of entire evidence, both oral and documentary, acquitted A-2 to A-5 of the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 323 of I.P.C. However, the learned Special Judge held that the prosecution has proved the offences under Sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 323 of I.P.C. against the appellant/A-1, convicted and sentenced him as stated supra. Against this conviction and sentence, the appellant/A-1 preferred this appeal. 5. Learned Counsel for the appellant/A-1 submitted that there were disputes between P.W.1 and the accused regarding common front yard and that P.W.1 made the false complaint with an oblique motive to wreck vengeance against the accused. He further submitted that P.Ws.1 to 5 belongs to one family and P.W.6 belongs to the same caste of P.W.1 and therefore, their evidence can be brushed aside as they are all interested witnesses. He further submitted that the learned Judge failed to appreciate the crucial discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the scribe of Ex.P1-complaint. He further submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the evidence of P.W.7-Doctor, who deposed in his cross-examination, that abrasions may not be possible with hands and that the injuries mentioned in Exs.P2 to P6- Wound Certificates may be possible if fallen from running bullock cart. Lastly, he submitted that there is a delay of two days in lodging the complaint by P.W.1 and that there is no plausible explanation forthcoming from P.W.1 with regard to the said delay. 6. On the other hand, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/complainant contended that the trial Court evaluated the entire evidence and came to the conclusion that there is sufficient material to show that the appellant/A-1 was responsible for the commission of offence and, therefore, the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is justified and no interference is called for from this Court. 7. 7. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellant/A-1 needs any interference from this Court or not? 8. The alleged eyewitnesses to the occurrence, according to the case of the prosecution, are P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.6 is an independent eyewitness to the occurrence. P.W.1 is the complainant, who lodged Ex.P1-complaint. P.Ws.2 and 3 are sisters of P.W.1. P.W.4 is the father and P.W.5 is the mother of P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.6 is the neighbour of P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.7 is the doctor who issued Exs.P2 to P6-Wound Certificates relating to P.Ws.1 to 5. P.W.8 is the M.R.O, who issued Ex.P7-Caste letter of P.W.1. P.W.9 is the Investigating Officer. 9. The case of the prosecution is that on 10.05.2009 at 11.00 P.M. while P.W.1-Mala Jangam Suguna, wife of Mallesham, was scolding her younger sister Jangam Kalyani (P.W.3) as she was not doing any household work, A-1 to A-5 by thinking that P.W.1 was scolding them, came to her house and attacked them and caught hold the saree of P.W.1 and dragged her and then A-1 caught hold the hand of P.W.1, beat her and threatened her with dire consequences and also kicked P.W.3 on her stomach. Thereafter, when her father tried to intervene in order to rescue them, the accused thrashed him and abused him by his caste name "as nee mala kollena dengutha mala lanjakoduka". However, P.W.1, in her evidence, stated that on the date of incident at about 11.30 P.M., while she was scolding her sister (P.W.3) for not doing the household work, A-2 and A-3, by thinking that she has been abusing them, came there and started abusing her in filthy language on her caste name as "Lanja ijatlede, sharamlede, mala lanja etc.," then A-1, A-4 and A-5 also came there and when A-2 and A-3 revealed them that she has been abusing them, A-1 caught hold her saree and removed her saree and that she was on blouse and petty coat; A-4 and A-5 caught hold of her tuft and pushed her down. P.W.1 further stated that when her sisters (P.Ws.2 and 3) tried to rescue her, A-1 kicked P.W.3 on her stomach and abused her as "O Lanja, badmash lanja, gadidi lanja, nennu champuta Yemichestavu etc.,"; A-1 and A-2 beat her parents (P.Ws.4 and 5); A-3 to A-5 beat her mother (P.W.5) and A-1 also beat her sister (P.W.2) and kicked another sister (P.W.3). A perusal of the evidence of P.W.9-Investigating Officer would reveal that P.W.1 did not state before P.W.9 that the accused abused her as "Ijjathleda, sharamlede, mala lanja etc.," Further, P.W.1 did not state before P.W.9 that when she was scolding her sister (P.W.3), A-2 and A-3 came to her house and abused her and later A-1, A-4 and A-5 came there and asked A-2 and A-3 as to what has happened and that A-2 and A-3 revealed that P.W.1 was abusing them. What all P.W.1 stated before P.W.9 is that all the accused came to their house at a time and assaulted them. P.W.9-Investigating Officer, in his crossexamination stated that P.W.1 did not state before him or mentioned in Ex.P1 that A-1 pulled her saree and removed it and that she was on blouse and a petty coat and that A-4 and A-5 caught hold of her tuft. But, P.W.1, in her Ex.P1 complaint, mentioned that A-1 pulled her kongu. P.W.1 also did not state before P.W.9 that A-1 and A-2 beat her parents (P.Ws.4 and 5). 10. The evidence of P.W.2 is that on the date of offence, when her sister (P.W.1) was scolding P.W.3 as she was not doing any household work, A-2 came there and questioned P.W.1 as to why she has been abusing them, when P.W.1 explaining that she was not abusing them, A-1 caught hold the saree of P.W.1, pulled her and removed it, then caught hold the tuft of P.W.1 and beat her and dragged her in front yard and then all the accused came there and started beating them and that they beat P.W.2 on her leg and chest, P.W.3 and her parents and also abused them in filthy language by taking their caste name as Mala lanjakoduka, baga balisinavu Badakavu, mimmalni champi bayatakupothe yemi chestharu etc.,". P.W.2 also did not state before P.W.9-Investigating Officer that A-1 pulled the saree of P.W.1, removed it from the body and that P.W.1 remain on petty coat and blouse. P.W.2 also did not state before P.W.9-Investigating Officer that A-1 pulled the saree of P.W.1, removed it from the body and that P.W.1 remain on petty coat and blouse. Further, P.W.2 did not state before P.W.9 that she sustained injuries on her legs and chest, but she stated before him that she sustained injuries. 11. Likewise, the evidence of P.W.3 is that on the date of incident while P.W.1 was scolding her for not doing the household work, A-2 and A-3 came and questioned P.W.1 as to why she was abusing them and when P.W.1 explaining that she was not abusing them, A1 came and started abusing them in filthy language by naming their caste as "Mala lanja, mogudu leduganeeku, intipunadi tisestha, baga balishinavu lanja etc.,; A-1 caught hold the saree of P.W.1, pulled and removed it. P.W.3 further stated that when her sister (P.W.2) tried to rescue her, A-3 to A-5 caught hold the tuft of P.W.2, beat her and pulled her down and when P.W.3 intervened and caught hold the feet of A-1 and requested him not to beat them, A-1 abused her by naming her caste, kicked her with his leg on her stomach and that when her father (P.W.4) came there, the accused abused him; A-1 and A-2 beat him and A-3 to A-5 beat her mother (P.W.5) and that A-2 threatened them with dire consequences that they will kill them. However, the evidence of P.W.9-Investigating Officer is that P.W.3 did not state before him that she touched the feet of A-1 asking him not to beat them and on that A-1 kicked on her abdomen. P.W.3 also did not state before him that A-1 abused her as 'mala lanja' and kicked her and that she fell down. P.W.3 also did not state before him that A-1 and A-2 beat her father. 12. The evidence of P.W.4, father of P.Ws.1 to 3, is that on the date of offence, while P.W.1 and P.W.3 were quarrelling, all the accused came upon their house and abused them on the name of their caste as "mala jathi, muskat paisa dangale, appudumeeintiki vachi, yemi lekunta chestamu" and beat them with hands causing injuries on his back and stomach. However, P.W.4 did not state the same before P.W.9- Investigating Officer. P.W.4 also did not state before P.W.9 that he sustained injuries on his back and stomach. 13. However, P.W.4 did not state the same before P.W.9- Investigating Officer. P.W.4 also did not state before P.W.9 that he sustained injuries on his back and stomach. 13. The evidence of P.W.5, mother of P.Ws.1 to 3, is that on the date of offence, while P.W.1 scolding P.W.3 for not doing work, the accused thought that P.W.1 was abusing them, came upon their house and abused them in filthy language by naming their caste as "mala lanja, madiga lanja, yemilekunta chestamu, yennirojulakaina champi padesthamu". However, P.W.5 also did not state the same before P.W.9-Investigating Officer, but she stated before him that the accused abused her as mala lanja. 14. The evidence of P.W.6, who is the neighbour of P.Ws.1 to 5, is that on the date of incident, when she went to the house of P.W.1 to discuss about the next day coolie work, she found P.W.1 abusing P.W.3 in her house and then A-2 and A-3 came there and started quarrelling with P.Ws.1 to 3. P.W.6 further stated that A-1 came and pulled the saree of P.W.1 and removed it, then P.W.3 requested A-1 not to do so and touched his fee, but A-1 kicked her on her stomach and that when P.W.4 intervened, all the accused abused P.Ws.1 to 5 by taking their caste name as "mala lanjakoduka, mala jangapoda, champiyestamu etc.," and beat P.W.4 and P.W.1. 15. On careful scrutiny of the aforesaid evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, makes it clear that their evidence do not inspire confidence of this Court and the same is sketchy and improved one and in the absence of corroboration, it would not be safer to repose confidence in the version of P.Ws.1 to 6. Further, it is evident that there are number of contradictions and omissions in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6, which would fatal to the case of prosecution. Further, P.Ws.1 to 5 belong to one family and P.W.6 belongs to the same caste of P.Ws.1 to 5 and, therefore, their evidence can be brushed aside as they are highly interested witnesses. Further, the injuries as mentioned in Exs.P2 to P6-Wound Certificates of P.Ws.1 to 5 are not corresponding to the injuries as spoken to by P.W.7-Doctor. Moreover, the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the crucial discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the scribe of Ex.P1 report. Further, the injuries as mentioned in Exs.P2 to P6-Wound Certificates of P.Ws.1 to 5 are not corresponding to the injuries as spoken to by P.W.7-Doctor. Moreover, the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate the crucial discrepancies in the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 with regard to the scribe of Ex.P1 report. A perusal of the cross-examination of P.W.1 would clearly indicate that the scribe of Ex.P1 is P.W.3, whereas P.W.2 in her cross-examination stated that P.W.1 is the scribe of Ex.P1. However, P.W.3, in her cross-examination, stated that she is the scribe of Ex.P1. That apart, according to the prosecution, the alleged incident occurred on 10.05.2009 at about 11.30 P.M. Ex.P1-complaint was given by P.W.1 to the police on 12.05.2009 at 9.00 A.M. P.W.1, in her cross-examination, stated that she went to the police station at 10.00 A.M. on 12.05.2009 and remained in the Police Station till 4.00 P.M. No plausible explanation has been offered by P.W.1 for the said delay. There is absolutely no evidence on record to establish that on the date of alleged incident, while P.W.1 was scolding her sister (P.W.3) for not doing any household work, the appellant/A-1 alone went to the house of P.W.1 and abused her by referring her caste, pulled her saree and removed it, due to which P.W.1 remained on petty-coat and blouse only. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in right perspective and erred in convicting the appellant/A-1. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the appellant/A-1 beyond all reasonable doubt and that the appellant/A1 is entitled to benefit of doubt. 17. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/A1 for the offences punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (x) of the S.Cs. & S.Ts. (POA) Act, 1989 by the trial Court in S.C.No.31 of 2009 dated 06.05.2011, are hereby set aside and the appellant/A1 is acquitted for the said offences. The bail bonds of the appellant/A-1 shall stand cancelled and his sureties shall be discharged. The fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant/A1 shall be refunded to him. 18. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.