A reasoned acquittal must stand where the prosecution fails to prove the offences’ essential ingredients.

The complainant alleged that on 7 February 2014, while returning from a ration shop in Rupal village, the accused questioned her, made an indecent remark about her body and abused her; she further alleged that he later came to her home and abused her again.

She lodged a police complaint on 5 March 2014. The accused was charged under Sections 354A and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Special Court acquitted him on 30 January 2017. The complainant appealed under Section 378(1)(3) of the CrPC.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the accused or misappreciated the prosecution evidence.

2. Whether the acquittal suffered from illegality or perversity warranting appellate interference.

The Court considered the charged offences under Sections 354A and 504 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act, requiring proof of their essential statutory ingredients.

It relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala for the requirement that the alleged insult be connected to the complainant’s caste identity, and on authorities including Sohanvir v. State of U.P. for the “place within public view” requirement applicable to the relevant caste-abuse offence.

On appeals against acquittal, Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka establish that the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but must account for the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed absent a manifest error or perversity.

The Court found that the complainant had not specified the alleged derogatory words, the precise place of the incident, or who was present; the other witnesses did not supply satisfactory proof of those material facts.

The complaint was lodged about a month after the alleged incident, without a satisfactory explanation. The complainant’s later assertion that she had submitted an application on 12 February 2014 was not supported by evidence at trial; her request to examine a witness about it was made after arguments and was dismissed by the Trial Court.

The evidence therefore did not establish the necessary ingredients of the charged offences, including the requisite caste-related intent and circumstances. Applying the heightened restraint governing appeals against acquittal, the Court found no perversity or material error in the Trial Court’s assessment.

The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal confirmed, the bail bond cancelled, and the record and proceedings directed to be returned to the Trial Court.