IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.202 of 2008. The State of Rajasthan V E R S U S Mohd. Hussain Pathan son of Shri Nihal Ahmad Date of Order :::: 25/02/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan Ms. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Nawab Ali Rathore, Counsel for the respondent By the Court : This is leave to appeal filed by the State against the judgment passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Baran, who vide its judgment dated 02.11.2007 convicted the accused- respondent for commission of the offence under Section 332 of the I.P.C., but acquitted him for the offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. The State has moved this leave to appeal against acquittal of the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on the record. Brief facts of the case are that on 19.05.2005 at 11.30 AM accused Mohd. Hussain Pathan, who happens to be the husband of the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Balwara came in the Panchayat Samiti, Anta and demanded muster-roll from Shri Ram Charan Meena, Senior Clerk, after getting a report from Zila Parishad to hand-over the muster-roll, but the complainant refused to hand-over, which led altercation in between the parties and after hurling abuses the accused gave beating to Ram Charan Meena. Injured Ram Charan Meena, lodged report. The trial proceeded. The prosecution produced as many as 9-witnesses. The accused denied the allegations levelled against him by the prosecution witnesses. The trial Court after giving detailed judgment acquitted the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act, but convicted him for the commission of offence under Section 332 of the I.P.C. and gave the benefit of Probation of Offender's Act. The learned Public Prosecutor for the State has contended that the trial Court on the basis of the doubt created because of the contradictions appeared in the statements of the prosecution witnesses has acquitted the accused respondent, which is against the evidence available on record and accused should have been convicted for the commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the SC/ST Act because the injured Ram Charan Meena, belongs to the S.T. Category. A bare perusal of the record of the trial Court, reveals that there are major contradictions about the version of hurling abuses regarding the caste of complainant Ram Charan Meena and in such case if the major contradictions about this aspect are available on record, the trial Court has rightly extended the benefit of doubt, to the accused. There is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by the trial Court. Having regard to the fact that the accused has already been convicted for the offence under Section 332 I.P.C. and for the offence under the SC/ST Act, the benefit of doubt extended by the trial Court is neither illegal nor against the material and evidence available on record. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the judgment of acquittal. Consequently, leave to appeal is rejected, and leave is refused. (Bhanwaroo Khan) J. ashok/