JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Garg, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) IPC has been preferred against the judgment dated 20.10.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 33/92, whereby the accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 504 IPC as under :- Offence Punishment Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Six months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 100/-. In default of fine, to undergo five days SI Section 504 IPC Rs.100/- fine. In default of payment of fine, to undergo ten days simple imprisonment 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. The concise facts of the case are that a First Information Report was registered on the basis of written report filed by complainant Ramesh chandra to the effect that on 04.07.1992 atabout 8:30 PM in the evening, he was going on his tractor to his house. When the complainant reached his house, he found a truck loaded with firewood standing outside his house. The complainant requested the driver of the truck to move his truck. However, the accused started hurling caste oriented abuses and also threatened to kill him. 4. On the basis of aforesaid report, FIR was registered about commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet against accused-appellant for aforesaid offences. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed for offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined four witnesses and various documents were also exhibited. Thereafter, statement of appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded. No witness was examined on the defence side. 6. After scrutiny of the material on record and evidence produced by the prosecution as well as statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., learned trial Court vide judgment dated 20.10.1994 acquitted the appellant for offence under Section 341 IPC but convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 504 IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as stated hereinabove. 7. 7. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the accused-appellant has preferred this criminal appeal before this Court. 8. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant submits complainant Ramesh Chandra was examined as PW/1 and after chief examination, cross-examination was kept reserved but after that Ramesh Chandra was not summoned and he did not appear for cross-examination. It is argued that the learned court below convicted the appellant only on the basis of statement of Shankar who was driver of the complainant and so called eye witness Kamla who has been declared hostile. PW/4 Shankar has mentioned that present appellant used abusive language but in cross-examination, he mentioned that there were so many houses nearby but none of the independent witnesses have been examined. Learned counsel also harped upon inconsistencies between the prosecution story and the statements rendered by the prosecution witnesses who reached the place of the alleged occurrence. Learned counsel for the accused-appellant therefore, submits that the conviction and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant 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-appellant for the offence under the SC/ST Act, in particular. 9. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State vehemently opposed the prayer made by learned counsel for the accused-appellant and submitted that there is no reason to disbelieve the prosecution evidence and learned Trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant. He prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court may be sustained and sentence awarded to the accused-appellant by the learned Trial Court be maintained by this Court. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor and also gone through the entire record. 11. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was enacted with a laudable object to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Sub-clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub-clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been made punishable. The Legislature required 'intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of Insult', "intimidation' and "humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view'. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(i) (x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State Uttarakhand reported in (2021) 81 OCR (SC) 241 has observed as under :- “11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under: “3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;” 12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1) (r) of the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”. 13. In Swarn Singh & Ors. v. State, : 2008 (4) RCR (Crl.) 74 (SC) it was held that for a public view some members of the public should be there and they should not be the relatives and friends of the complainant. 13. In Swarn Singh & Ors. v. State, : 2008 (4) RCR (Crl.) 74 (SC) it was held that for a public view some members of the public should be there and they should not be the relatives and friends of the complainant. In view of the same, the expression "public view" has to be interpreted to mean that public person present should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. 14. In the present case, it goes without saying that conviction of the appellant is mainly on the basis of testimony of PW/2 Kamla and PW/4 Shankar. PW/2 Kamla has turned hostile as stated that she was at home when the incident happened and PW/4 Shankar is the employee of the complainant Ramesh chandra and, therefore, he cannot be termed to be independent and impartial. The independent witnesses of the locality have not been examined by the prosecution despite the fact that various houses were nearby the place of incident. It is also relevant to mention here that the complainant who was the main witness in this case never appeared for cross-examination. This Court is conscious of the stringent provisions as contained in the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and the legislative intent behind the said enactment. However, this Court finds that the statements of the witnesses coupled with the prosecution story, fail to prove the prosecution story beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the benefit thereof would certainly go in favour of the accused. 15. Resultantly, the present appeal is allowed. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellant as recorded vide judgment dated 20.10.1994 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Banswara in Sessions Case No. 33/92 is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 504 IPC. The appellant is on bail; he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. 16. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him for offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 504 IPC. The appellant is on bail; he need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly. Record of the learned court below be sent back forthwith. 16. Keeping in view, however, the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. the accused appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- and a surety bond in the like amount before the learned trial court within a period of one month, which shall be effective for a period of six months to the effect that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the judgment or for grant of leave, the appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble Supreme Court.