1 APEAL 119 OF 1997 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 119 OF 1997. Mansingh Baburao Garud, age: 55 years, at & Post Belsar, Tal. Purandar, District:Pune .. Appellant -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Rahul Kate, for the Applicant. Mrs, A. A. Mane, APP for the Respondent State. Mr Vikas Shivarkar, for original complainant. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 25rd February, 2011 Oral Judgment. 1. This appeal is directed against the appellant’s conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 451, 509 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities )Act, 1989 and sentence to undergo R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- for offence under section 354 of the IPC, R.I. for one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for offence under Section 451 of IPC, R.I. for six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under section 509 of IPC, and R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(xi) of the SC & ST 2 APEAL 119 OF 1997 (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act, 1989. 2. The allegation is that on 3rd November, 1992, at 2.00 p.m. applellant is alleged to have entered the house of prosecutrix and attempted to commit rape upon the prosecutrix, who was minor aged about 9 years at the relevant time. There is no allegation that the appellant committed this offence because victim belongs to the scheduled caste. After trial learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the offence punishable under Section 376 was not made out and therefore, he proceeded to convict the appellant as aforementioned. 3. The parties have filed application for composition of the offence under Sections 320(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The original complainant, who is the mother of prosecutrix and the prosecutrix herself are present with their advocate. They state that the parties want to amicably settle the matter. They have filed affidavit to this effect. Considering this the conviction of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 354, 451 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code is set aside and the appellant is acquitted for the said offence. 4. The appellant was also charged for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, only because victim was belonging to the scheduled caste, even though while committing offence appellant was not alleged to have 3 APEAL 119 OF 1997 intention to ravish the victim because victim being Scheduled caste. Learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xi) of the said Act could not be sustained because the investigation was carried out by Police Sub Inspector when under the Rules framed, it was supposed to have been carried out by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Therefore, on this count also conviction of appellant for the offence punishable under section 3(1) (xi) of the said Act, would be unsustainable. Therefore, in so far as conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) (xi) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, the appeal is allowed and the conviction for the said offence is set aside. 5. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant is set aside. He is acquitted for all the offences. Fine amount if any paid by the appellant be refunded to him. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)