HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL APPEAL No.136 of 2006 JUDGMENT: The appellants 1 and 2 / A.1 and A.2 were convicted by the lower Court under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the Act) and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of six months and ﬁne of Rs.500/- each; and were also convicted under Section 323 IPC and were sentenced to simple imprisonment of three months and ﬁne of Rs.500/-. Questioning the same, A.1 and A.2 filed this appeal. 2. There is no medical evidence to show that PW.2 also sustained any hurt or injury in the transaction. As per evidence of PW.6 - Medical Oﬃcer in Government Hospital, Gadwal, PW.1 alone was having an abrasion on left ear. PW.1 did not attribute the said abrasion on his left ear to any one of A.1 and A.2. According to PW.1, A.2 beat him with small stick on his chest. There is no injury at all on PW.1’s chest as per evidence of PW.5 and Ex.P.4 medical certiﬁcate. PW.2 says that A.1 beat him and had torn his shirt. Torn shirt of PW.1 was not seized by the police. There is no evidence of PW.2 receiving any injury. Therefore, the lower Court totally erred in holding A.1 and A.2 guilty under Section 323 IPC. 3. Insofar as the oﬀence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act is concerned, though there is evidence of PWs.1 to 3 about A.1 abusing PW.1 as Madiga bastard and there is also evidence of PW.5 the then Mandal Revenue Oﬃcer who issued Ex.P.3 caste certiﬁcate of PW.1 to the eﬀect that he belongs to Madiga caste which is a scheduled caste, there is absolutely no evidence on record to show to which caste A.1 and A.2 belong to. Insulting or intimidating a person belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe in a place which is of public view, becomes an oﬀence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, only in case the accused do not belong to either scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. It is for the prosecution to prove to which caste the accused belong to and that they belong to other caste than scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. There is total omission in evidence on this aspect. PWs.1 to 3 did not speak about the caste to which A.1 and A.2 belong to. The Investigating Oﬃcer also did not collect any caste certiﬁcate relating to A.1 and A.2. In the absence of any evidence before the Court and proof to the eﬀect that A.1 and A.2 do not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, the oﬀence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is not made out. The lower Court totally overlooked this aspect of the case and came to an erroneous conclusion in favour of the prosecution. Therefore, ﬁnding of guilt recorded by the lower Court against A.1 and A.2 is unsustainable in law. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the convictions and the sentences passed by the lower Court against the appellants 1 and 2 / A.1 and A.2 and acquitting them. ____________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J Dt. 23rd November, 2011. PNV