ORDER : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 12.01.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Pratapgarh camp Chittorgarh, in Special Session Case No.48/1993 by which the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :- S.No. Offence Sentence Fine Sentence in default of fine 1. 447 IPC 2 months’ RI ---- --- 2. 427 IPC 6 months’ RI --- --- 3. 379 IPC 6 months’ RI --- --- 4. Section 3(1) (v)(x) of SC/ ST Act 6 months’ RI Rs.500/- 2 months’ S.I. 2. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04.01.1993 complainant Jani gave a written report before the concerned Police Station to the effect that she belongs to Scheduled Caste and had a house at Gram Panchayat Bhupal Sagar, where some Babool trees were grown. On 02.01.1993 at about 9.00 accused-appellant trespassed onto her property in Gram Panchayat Bhupal Sagar and felled several Babool trees. Furthermore, the complaiant stated that the accused- appellant subjected the complainanat to abusive language during the incident. Based on this report, Police registered a case against the accused-appellant and started investigation. 4. On completion of investigation, police filed challan against the accused-appellant. Thereafter, the charges for offence under Sections 447, 427 & 379 IPC and Section 3(1)(v)(x) of SC/ST Act, were framed by the trial court against the accused-appellant, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as six witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, three witnesses viz., DW/1-Kanwarchand, DW/2-Ramchandra & DW/3 Nathulal were examined. 6. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 12.01.1995 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences as aforesaid. Hence, this criminal appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the elements of an offence under Section 379, 427 IPC so also Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 379, 427 IPC against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the prosecution has failed to establish the elements of an offence under Section 379, 427 IPC so also Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is argued that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence under Section 379, 427 IPC against the petitioner. The prosecution case is solely based on the statement of complainant and Rami Devi, PW/3 who is daughter of complainant. Thus, these witnesses are interested witnesses and their testimony is not trustworthy at all. Another witness is PW/2 Bheru lal is only hearsay witness to whom the complainant allegedly narrated the incident and this witness has only stated what was told by the complainant. So far as the offence under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the complainant's testimony does not indicate that the appellant used abusive language in a public place with the intent to humiliate her. The counsel highlighted the statement of PW/1, Jani Bai, who stated that the alleged abusive language was hurled in her field (Bada) and no other person was present. It is argued that a private field does not constitute a public place, and further, PW/1 did not explicitly state that the appellant's intention was to humiliate her. Furthermore, the counsel points to the testimony of PW/2, Bheru Lal, who stated that the complainant reported that appellant had uprooted Babool tree from her field but did not mention use of any abusive language. Similarly, the statement of PW/3, Rami Dholi, also lacks any mention of abusive language by the appellant. On the contrary, the counsel emphasizes the statements of DW/1 to DW/3, who unequivocally denied that the incident, as alleged by the complainant. Based on this evidence, it is argued that no offence under Section 3(1)(v)(x) of the SC/ST Act is substantiated against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned judgment may be quashed and set aside and the appellant may be acquitted from the offences. 8. Learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate General opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned AAG submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 9. 8. Learned Asst. to Addl. Advocate General opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned AAG submitted that there is neither any occasion to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused appellant nor any compassion or sympathy is called for in the said case. 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced at bar and meticulously examined the impugned judgment alongwith material available on record. 10. This court finds that the evidence presented by the prosecution is insufficient to sustain convictions under Sections 427 and 379 of the IPC. Specifically, the testimony of PW/1, Jani, regarding the alleged incident of the accused attempting to cut Babool tree and using abusive language, lacks a crucial element for the charge of using abusive language with intent to humiliate. While she testified to the use of abusive language, she did not establish that this language was uttered with the specific intention of causing humiliation, which is a necessary component for certain offences. Furthermore, the testimonies of PW/2, Bherulal, and PW/3, Rami, are viewed with caution due to their status as heard and interested witnesses, respectively. Legal principles dictate that such testimonies, while admissible, are not automatically presumed to be reliable and require corroboration. In the absence of strong corroborating evidence, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the accused appellant, a fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence. Consequently, the court is not inclined to uphold the convictions for the offences under Sections 427 and379 IPC. 11. So far as offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, this Court's decision on the IPC offences has a direct bearing. Since the underlying offences under Sections 427 and 379 IPC have not been established beyond a reasonable doubt, the basis for a conviction under Section 3(1)(v) of the SC/ST Act, which often relates to offences under the IPC committed by members of non-SC/ST communities against members of SC/ST communities, is significantly weakened. The benefit of the doubt, as previously discussed, must ultimately be given to the accused in this context as well. Furthermore, concerning the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, which pertains to intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof. Furthermore, concerning the charge under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, which pertains to intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view, the prosecution has failed to discharge its burden of proof. A critical requirement for a conviction under this section is that the alleged act must have occurred "in public view." In the present case, the prosecution has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the alleged act of using abusive language or any other relevant conduct took place in a location visible to the public or in a manner that would constitute "public view" as interpreted by legal precedents. The absence of this crucial element renders the charge unsustainable. 12. In view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of conviction dated 12.01.1995 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases), Pratapgarh camp Chittorgarh, in Special Session Case No.48/1993 is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the aforementioned offences while extended benefit of doubt. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. His bail bonds stand discharged. 13. 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/- each 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 appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before Hon’ble Supreme Court. 14. The record of the trial court, if any, be sent back forthwith.