Absence of independent witnesses and medical evidence fatal to prosecution in Atrocity Act acquittal appeal.

The appellant (original complainant) filed a criminal appeal against the judgment dated 04.01.2014, whereby the 2nd Additional District & Sessions Judge, Vadodara, acquitted eight accused persons.

The prosecution alleged that on 20.03.2011, the respondents, armed with sticks and Dharia, threatened the appellant’s family and used caste-based slurs in public view.

The FIR was registered on 27.04.2011 after a delay of approximately 45 days.

The accused were charged under Sections 143, 147, 148, 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act.

1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution.

2. Whether the ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act were satisfied regarding the alleged public insult.

3. Whether the delay in filing the FIR and the lack of medical evidence were fatal to the prosecution's case.

Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which requires that abusive words be uttered in a public place within "public view" with the intent to insult.

Principles from Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala (AIR 2024 SC 4557) and Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2026 INSC 468) clarifying requirements of "public view".

Principles from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka ((2007) 4 SCC 415), emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" and the limited grounds for interference unless the trial court’s finding is "perverse".

The High Court observed that while the prosecution alleged a violent assault with deadly weapons, no medical evidence was produced, and no doctor was examined to prove any injuries.

The court found the 45-day delay in filing the FIR remained inadequately explained, despite the appellant’s claim of police inaction.

The court noted that no independent witnesses from the locality were examined to corroborate the occurrence of the incident in "public view," a mandatory requirement for conviction under the Atrocity Act.

Applying the standard from Chandrappa, the court reasoned that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the appellate court must not disturb an acquittal unless the trial court's view is "vitiated by manifest illegality."

The lack of corroborating independent testimony and medical proof made the trial court’s decision to grant the benefit of doubt a plausible and reasonable conclusion.

The court held that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt due to the absence of independent witnesses, lack of medical evidence, and the significant unexplained delay in registration of the FIR.

The bail bonds were cancelled, and the trial court’s judgment was confirmed.