JUDGMENT 1. In the wake of instant surge in COVID - 19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in the Court, for the safety of all concerned. 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.08.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh in Special Sessions Case No.87/92, whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, alongwith a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine to undergo further one month's simple imprisonment; for the offence under Section 323 IPC, were sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment. 3. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants submits that complainant-Pratap filed a written report before the Police Station, Doongla, District Chittorgarh, alleging therein that on 18.03.1992 at about 9:00 p.m., on the occasion of Holi Festival, while the complainant went to join the gathering for participating in the customary Gair (used to be played on the day of Holi festival), the accused persons, started abusing him with caste based abuses etc.; not only this, the accused persons also started beating the complainant, and when the complainant's wife (Geeta Devi) and brother (Ekling) came to his rescue, the accused persons hurled caste based abuses against them as well. 4. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants further submits that pursuant to the aforementioned report, an FIR bearing No.40/92 was registered in Police Station, Doongla, District Chittorgarh for the offences under Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 323 IPC; after due investigation, the charge-sheet was filed for the aforementioned offences against the accused-appellants before the learned trial court; thereafter, the charges were framed against the appellants for the said offences, whereupon they pleaded not guilty and were thus made to stand the trial. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also submits that thereafter, the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, without duly appreciating the evidence as placed before it; this is more so when no independent witness was produced and examined by the learned trial court. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also submits that thereafter, the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellants, as above, without duly appreciating the evidence as placed before it; this is more so when no independent witness was produced and examined by the learned trial court. 6. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant harped upon the inconsistency between the statement rendered by PW-1 Pratap (complainant), PW-2 Geeta (wife of the complainant) and PW-3 Ekling (complainant's brother). Learned counsel also submits that the complainant's brother made a clear deposition that prior to the incident in question, there was a dispute between the accused and the complainant, pertaining to Chajja (Balcony), and also, several times altercations between them took place in regard thereto. Learned counsel thus submits that the said deposition made by the complainant's brother makes it amply clear that the said altercations and dispute have been given a different colour by the complainant party, so as to attract the alleged offences against the accused-appellants; such an illegal act on the part of the complainant, which is clearly discernible on the face of the record, is detrimental to the case of the prosecution, in regard to the conviction of the present accused-appellants. 7. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants also submits that some other persons were also present at the time of the alleged incident, some of whom have been produced as defence witnesses before the learned trial court, who had made a clear deposition that no such incident, as alleged by the complaint, took place on the relevant day, and thus, the accused-appellants have been wrongly implicated in this case, so as to enable the complainant to humiliate and harass them. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant also harped upon the fact that the aforementioned written report was filed by the complainant before the police, not on the same day, but on the next day of the alleged incident, and no reason whatsoever was forthcoming for such delay. 9. Thus, as per learned counsel, the aforementioned backdrop clearly reflects various inconsistencies between the statements of the prosecution witnesses and that of the complainant. The same clearly shows that the criminal proceedings were launched against the present accused-appellants just to settle personal scores, while abusing the process of law, that too under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, apart from the allegation under Section 323 IPC. The same clearly shows that the criminal proceedings were launched against the present accused-appellants just to settle personal scores, while abusing the process of law, that too under the provisions of the SC/ST Act, apart from the allegation under Section 323 IPC. Learned counsel further submits that there are no previous criminal antecedents against the discredit of the present accused- appellants, which is reflected from the impugned judgment itself. 10. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants therefore, submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused- appellants by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eye of law, as the same lacks, amongst others, appreciation of the evidence available on record, for the purpose of charging and convicting the accused-appellants for the offence under the SC/ST Act and the Indian Penal Code. 11. Learned counsel for the accused-appellants however, submits that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellants has already been suspended by this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 20.09.1993 passed in S.B. Criminal Bail No.352/1993. 12. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the accused- appellants, submits that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded in the impugned judgment, the appellants are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court, as there is nothing on record, which can be said to be detrimental to the case of the prosecution. 13. Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that regarding the contention on behalf of the accused-appellant in relation to inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the complainant himself, the learned trial court observed that minor inconsistencies in the statements are bound to happen, and that, such statements cannot be discarded, without any basis; regarding the deposition made by the defence witnesses in favour of the accused-appellants, the learned trial court observed that such depositions, without any cogent evidence, cannot be believed, even for the purpose of giving a benefit of doubt to the concerned accused person. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that regarding the averment of no previous criminal antecedents against the petitioner, the learned trial court, while keeping the same into consideration has already taken a lenient view, which is also reflected from the impugned judgment itself. Learned Public Prosecutor also submits that regarding the averment of no previous criminal antecedents against the petitioner, the learned trial court, while keeping the same into consideration has already taken a lenient view, which is also reflected from the impugned judgment itself. Thus, as per learned Public Prosecutor, the learned trial court has duly appreciated the evidence placed before it, before passing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against the present accused-appellants, and that, prosecution was able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Learned Public Prosecutor relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India & Ors. (Writ Petition (C) No.1015 of 2018, decided on 10.02.2020). 15. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the judgment cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the inconsistencies are discernible on the face of the record. 16. This Court is also conscious of the stringent provisions contained in the SC/ST Act and the legislative intent behind such enactment. However, this Court finds that the record of the case, including the statements of the witnesses and the complainant, clearly speaks of contradictions between them. It is settled law that the contradictions, even if minor, cannot be put into action to convict and sentence any person for the concerned offence, particularly for the offence under the SC/ST Act. As regards, the conviction for the offence under Section 323 IPC, this Court finds that once happening of the incident in question is doubtful, in view of the inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the complainant, then the charging and convicting the accused-appellants for the offence under Section 323 IPC is not justifiable. 17. This Court is further conscious of the fact that the sentence awarded by the learned trial court vide the impugned judgment for the conviction in question was however, suspended by this Hon'ble Court, as aforementioned. 18. Thus, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds it a fit case for acquittal of the present accused-appellants. 19. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants as recorded vide the impugned judgment dated 20.08.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, in Special Sessions Case No.87/1992 is quashed and set aside. 19. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants as recorded vide the impugned judgment dated 20.08.1993 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pratapgarh, in Special Sessions Case No.87/1992 is quashed and set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. The appellants are on bail; they need not surrender. Their bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith.