SANDEEP MEHTA, J. - (1.) The appellant Suresh Kumar has been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 19.11.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Criminal Case No. 92/1994: Offences Sentences Fine Fine Default sentences Section 354 I.P.C. read with Six Months' Rs. 1,000/- 1 Month's S.I. Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act R.I.
(2.) Being aggrieved of his conviction and sentences, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C.
(3.) Learned Counsel Shri Kharlia, vehemently and fervently urges that even if the entire set up by the prosecution case is accepted, ex-facie, the conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST Act') cannot be sustained because there is no allegation of an of the prosecution witnesses that the accused committed the offence under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code with the intention that he was doing so with a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. He thus urges that the conviction of the appellant as recorded by the Trial Court is liable to be set aside to this extent as being grossly illegal. Regarding the charge under Section 354 I.P.C., the contention of Shri Kharlia was that the allegation levelled against the appellant that he outraged the modesty of the first informant Smt. Hardeep Kaur (PW-2), is trumped up and fabricated. As per Shri Kharlia, as a matter of fact, the members of the complainant party assaulted the accused who lodged a first information report against them at an earlier point of time and the present case was instituted against the accused purely as a counterblast. Shri Kharlia further submitted that as per the statement of Hardeep Kaur (PW-2), the accused dragged her by the hand and as a result thereof, her bangles were broken and she received injuries on her hands. But this allegation is not corroborated because the lady was not even subjected to medical examination. He thus urges that the appeal should be allowed and the appellant be acquitted of the charges levelled against him. In arguendo, his submission is that, even if the conviction of the appellant under Section 354 I.P.C. is to be sustained, then too, the accused appellant, who does not have any criminal antecedents, deserves to be given benefit of probation because the incident took place way back in the year 1992. ;