~ !^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR APPELLANT/: (Accused) RESPONDENT: Criminal Appeal No.1254of 1993 Vishwanath Pradhan S/o Sankeertan @ Shankarsan, aged 39 years, Occupation School Master, R/o Kishanpur, Police Station Pithora, Distt. Raipur. Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (now State of Chhattisgarh) {Criminal appeal under Section 374ofthe CodeofCriminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. Adil Minhaj, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Deputy Govt. Advocate forthe State/ respondent. Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL JUDGIVIENT (28-6-2010) 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & orderof sentence dated 21-12-93 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur inSpecial Criminal CaseNo.18/92, whereby & whereunder learnedSpecial Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act'), sentenced the appellantto undergo R.l. forone ysar. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence relating to such commission of offence on the ground of caste of the complainant/prosecutrix, the Court Below has convicted & sentencedthe appellant and thereby committed illegality. 3. Case ofthe prosecution, in brief, is that on 19-9-91 the prosecutrix (PW- 1) who is a's^udent of Middle School, Kishanpur, was present in her ' school, the appeilant who is a "tgacher called her in his room and used criiEninal force on her with intent to outrage her modesty on which she came out ofthe room and narrated the incident to other teachers and her father. Finally she submitted written report vide Ex.P-2 on 10-10-91. On the basis of Ex.P-2, F.1.R. Ex.P-2A was lodged. After completion of inupStigatiofi, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge,Raipur. 1n order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication'. The appellant has also examined defence witnesses Lakhan Singh Thakur (DW-1), Daras Ram Sahu (DW-2) & Sunder Lal Sahu (DW-3). 5. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Special Judge convicted & sentenc'ed the appellant as aforementioned. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment and record of the Court below. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that in order td attract the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act, the prosecution is required to prove bycogent evidence that the appellant has committed offence upon the woman belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe on the ground of her caste. But in the present case, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has not stated anything to show that the appellant has committed any offence on the ground of her caste. In absence of such evidence/ ingredients of the offence, conviction & sentence of the appellantunder Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act are not sustainable under the law. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant is a teacher and at the time of commission of offence he was having definite knowledge that the prosecutrix is a member of Scheduled Tribe antl knowing well the aforesaid fact, the appellant has committed the offence alleged against him and the Court below has rightly convicted & sentenced the appellant. .'L-. 9. In order to appreciate the argumehts advanced on behalf of the parties, 1 have examined the eyideace adduced on behalfofthe parties. 10.1n the present'case, the prosecutrix (PW-1) has categorically deposed / that at the time of incident she was present in the school, the appellant * • , who is teacher directed her for cleaning the room and while she was cleaning the room, the appellant pressed her breasts and thereby used crimina) force with intent to outrage her modesty. 1 r.1nthe present case, the prosecutrix has not deposed anything to show that the^appellant has committed the aforesaidoffence on the ground of ^' Soma her caste or that she has been insulted or dishonoured or outraged on the grouhd of her caste. 12.Evidence of the prosecutrix reveals that the appellant has committed the offence on the ground that the prosecutrix is a woman and not on the ground that she is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. In absence of such ingredients of the offence, conviction of the appellant underSection 3 (1) (xi) of the Act is not sustainable underthe law. 13.While convicting the appellant under Section 3 (1) (xi) ofthe Act, learned Special Judge has not considered the fact that the prosecution has not established that the appellant has co^mmitted offence against woman on the groundof her caste, and thereby committed illegality. Consequently, conviction & sentence ofthe appellant under Section 3 (1)(xi) ofthe Act arenot sustainable underthe law. 14.The appeal is allowed. Conviction & sentence of the appellant under Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act are hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant be set at liberty at once. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge A'-. u