Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a criminal revision application filed by the original complainant, Madhav Vithal Magar, challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Special Case No.20 of 1998. The complainant alleged that on 8.1.1998 at about 8 p.m., accused Ashok Kokare (accused No.1) passed in front of his house and overheard the complainant's brother Damodhar telling his nephew Vikas to tie bullocks on Ota to avoid theft. Accused No.1 felt insulted and asked the complainant whether he is a thief, then abused them in the name of their caste and called his brothers Dattarao, Panjab and Ramakant. They came with sticks and axe and assaulted the complainant, his brother and others. The complainant received a blow of axe on his forehead and shoulder. The police investigated and filed charge-sheet against eight accused for offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court, after trial, acquitted all accused. The complainant then filed the present revision. The main legal issues were whether the acquittal was perverse and whether the prosecution had proved the caste-based insult and assault. The arguments of the revision applicant were that the trial court erred in disbelieving the prosecution witnesses and that the acquittal was against the evidence. The respondents argued that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation and that the revision had no merit. The court analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution witnesses turned hostile, the medical evidence did not support the alleged axe injury, and the alleged caste abuse was not proved to be in public view. The court held that the trial court's judgment was not perverse and dismissed the revision, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Revision against acquittal - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - The High Court in revision against acquittal can interfere only if the judgment is perverse or based on no evidence or suffers from patent illegality - The revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate court - Held that the trial court's findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and not perverse (Paras 10-12). B) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Section 3(1)(x) - Caste-based abuse - Essential ingredients - To attract Section 3(1)(x), the insult or intimidation must be on account of the victim being a member of SC/ST and must be in public view - The prosecution failed to prove that the alleged abuse was in public view or that it was uttered with intent to humiliate on caste basis - Held that acquittal under Section 3(1)(x) was proper (Paras 13-15). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 324, 504, 506 - Rioting, assault, criminal intimidation - The medical evidence did not corroborate the alleged injuries caused by axe - The witnesses turned hostile and the complainant's version was inconsistent - Held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court is perverse and liable to be set aside in revision?
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Special Case No.20 of 1998 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Acquittal cannot be interfered with unless perverse or unreasonable
- Burden of proof on prosecution in criminal cases
- Standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt
- Appreciation of evidence in revision against acquittal
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC
