Case Note & Summary
The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Gandhinagar, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.15 of 2016. The respondents, Sanjay Arjanbhai Raval and another, were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution case was that prior to two years from the date of complaint i.e. 02.12.2015, the respondent accused, along with his mother and brother, was staying near the complainant; and that when the brother of the complainant asked the accused not to park a vehicle, the accused abused the complainant with caste-related words, assaulted him, and threatened him. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the incident arose from a land dispute and not due to caste prejudice, and that the prosecution witnesses were inconsistent. The High Court, after hearing the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the respondents, held that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse. The court observed that the essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act is that the insult or intimidation must be intentionally inflicted on account of the victim being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Since the incident was rooted in a land dispute, the acquittal was justified. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against Acquittal - Section 378 CrPC - Scope of Interference - The High Court in an appeal against acquittal can interfere only if the findings of the trial court are perverse or unreasonable, not merely because a different view is possible - Held that the trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse (Paras 7-9). B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(10) - Caste-Based Insult - Essential Ingredients - For an offence under Section 3(1)(10), the insult or intimidation must be intentionally inflicted on account of the victim being a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe - Held that the incident arose from a land dispute and not due to caste prejudice, hence the acquittal was proper (Paras 10-12). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 504, 506(2) - Assault, Criminal Intimidation - Appreciation of Evidence - The trial court found contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses and lack of independent corroboration - Held that the acquittal under these sections was based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 13-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 04.04.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Gandhinagar, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.15 of 2016 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Appeal against acquittal
- Section 378 CrPC
- Scope of interference in acquittal appeals
- Ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of SC/ST Act
- Intent to humiliate on caste basis
- Caste-based insult must be due to caste prejudice
- Not every insult attracts SC/ST Act
