IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Criminal Appeal No. 309 of 2003 Date of Decision: 19th July, 2010 __________________________________________________________ Mulakh Raj ….Appellant Versus State of H.P. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Appellant : Shri Rakesh Jaswal, Advocate. For the Respondent: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J (oral). This appeal can be disposed of on a short point. The basic point for consideration is whether the provisions of Section 3 (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act have been satisfied. 2. Without entering into other controversy, there is no evidence on record that the petitioner belongs to the Scheduled Caste community barring his statement that he is ‘Chamar’. This fact was challenged by the appellant. In his cross examination, he was asked as to whether he has placed on record any material to show 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 that he infact belonged to this community. Neither there is any evidence on record nor any attempt has been made by the complainant to place on record any material/proof to establish that the complainant belonged to the Chamar caste which is a Scheduled Caste. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has given short shrift to this aspect merely by assuming and presuming this fact. No Panchayat record has been produced on record to prove that complainant belonged to Scheduled Caste category. No conviction can follow on assumptions but it has to be based on a sound proof of facts as pleaded. On the entirety of the case of the prosecution, it is on record that witnesses of the prosecution namely PW2 Indira Devi and PW3 Amin Chand are political rivals of the petitioner. The trial Court again assumed that this fact has no significance. This cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, this appeal is allowed and the judgment and conviction of the trial Court is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted by holding that there is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant had committed any offence under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Bail bonds furnished by the appellant are discharged. July 19, 2010 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge