JUDGMENT 1. This Criminal Appeal under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 30.10.2007 in Special Case No.67/2006 by Special Judge, SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 whereby the appellant accused has been convicted under section 294 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for one month and section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six months and fine of Rs.200/- with default stipulation of one month additional simple imprisonment. 2. Facts in brief are that Ramgopal Singh Gond (PW-1) belongs to Gond category coming under Scheduled Tribes whereas appellant-appellant does not belong to SC or ST category. On 13.4.2006, Ramgopal Singh (PW-1) was working as Head master in Gvoernment Principal Higher Secondary School, Sarwahi Kala, District Shahdol at about 4:45 pm. He alongwith teacher Shivlal Kol (PW-5), Ramtejan Singh (PW-6) was engaged in discussion regarding annual examination. Appellant-accused passed in front of the school and Ramtejan Singh (PW-6) called the appellant-accused as ‘Kakriwala’. Daughter of appellantaccused is student of that school and informed the appellant-accused that appellant-accused was called by the name of ‘Kakriwala’. Appellant-accused came to school and uttered the obscene words addressing to Ramgopal Singh (PW-1) with casteist remark on raising alarm Charku (PW-3), Heeralal Basor (PW-2) reached to spot. Shivlal Kol and Heeralal mutated thereafter a report Ex.P10 was lodged on 14.4.2006 at P.S. Beohari and after investigation, a crime No.149/2006 was registered and after investigation, a final report under section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. was filed to the Court of JMFC Beohari, District Shahdol vide order dated 14.9.2006 in Criminal Case no.333/2006. Case was committed to Special Judge, Shahdol. Charges under section 294, 506 Part II of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 were framed. 3. Appellant-accused abjured guilt and prosecution examined Ramgopal Singh (PW-1), Heeralal Basor (PW-2), Charku (PW-3), Charku (PW-4), Shivlal Kol (PW-5), Ramtej Gond (PW-6), Chandrika Prasad Tiwari (PW-7), Ramganesh Sahu (PW-8), SDOP C.L. Dhurve (PW-9). In cross-examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant-accused put the defence on false implication advancing the defence that there was an election of Palak Shikshak Sangh and Ramgopal has supported the Girja Singh Gond and also take active participation to (in campaign) election but he opposed the Girja Singh Gond and supported Gaurdhwaj Gupta. In cross-examination under section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant-accused put the defence on false implication advancing the defence that there was an election of Palak Shikshak Sangh and Ramgopal has supported the Girja Singh Gond and also take active participation to (in campaign) election but he opposed the Girja Singh Gond and supported Gaurdhwaj Gupta. Ramgopal nurtured grudges against him and was trying that his daughter could not get success in Class-VII. Ultimately, he failed his daughter and also lodged this false complaint. Appellant-accused examined Bhaiyalal Singh (DW-1), Ku. Santosh Kushwaha (DW-2) and Mordhwaj Gupta (DW-3). He produced the marksheet of his daughter as Ex.D-1. 4. On appreciating the evidence, trial Court found proved that victim (PW-1) belongs to ST category whereas appellant-accused does not belong to SC or St category. Trial Court also found corroboration of the Ramgopal Singh (PW-1) from the testimony of Shivlal Kol (PW-5) and Ramtejan Singh (PW-6) that appellant-accused addressed to victim (PW-1) with casteist words and used filthy language but did not found proved that appellant-accused has threatened the victim (PW-1) with a life threatening warning and discarded the defence version and acquitted the appellant-accused from section 506-II of the IPC but convicted the appellant-accused under section 294 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 and sentenced as per para-1 of the impugned judgment. 5. This appeal has been preferred on the ground that trial Court committed error in relying the testimony of Ramgopal (PW-1) as there is no explanation for delay in lodging the FIR. So called word does not constitute the offence of section 294 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989, Material, omissions and contradictions have been overlooked. Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 has been denied. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned public prosecutor has supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused. 8. Perused the record. 9. Prosecution witnesses Heeralal Basor (PW-2), Charku (PW-3), Heeralal Sahu (PW-4) and Ramtejan (PW-6) have not supported the prosecution. Their version is in conformity with Bhaiyalal (DW-1), Ku. Santosh (DW-2) and Mordhwaj (DW-3). 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned public prosecutor has supported the conviction and sentence of the appellant-accused. 8. Perused the record. 9. Prosecution witnesses Heeralal Basor (PW-2), Charku (PW-3), Heeralal Sahu (PW-4) and Ramtejan (PW-6) have not supported the prosecution. Their version is in conformity with Bhaiyalal (DW-1), Ku. Santosh (DW-2) and Mordhwaj (DW-3). Ramgopal Singh (PW-1) has admitted in para-14 of his statement that he did not mention the facts in report Ex.P-1 that on 13.4.2006 at 4:45 pm, he was engaged in discussion regarding annual examination of Class VI and VII and ‘Kakariwala’ pass in front of the school and Ramtejan Singh called that person as ‘Kakariwala’. Thus the basis of his statement is coupled with exoneration. This witness has also admitted in para-16 of his statement that the word ‘Gond’ were added subsequently in the FIR. Whatever word is stated by appellant-accused was in response to the words used against the appellant-accused as ‘Kakariwala’ that does not indicate that they were intended to insult or intimidate the appellant-accused. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-8 taken together does not establish that they fall within the purview of ‘obscene words’. Accordingly, findings of trial Court are not sustainable. 10. No offence is made out against the appellant-accused. This appeal is allowed and the appellant/accused is acquitted from section 294 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989. His bail bond stands discharged.