Absence of independent witnesses and proof of caste-based intent warrants acquittal in Atrocities Act cases.

The State of Gujarat appealed an acquittal order dated 12.07.2012 passed by the Special Judge, Bharuch.

The prosecution alleged that on 23.10.2010, during a political rally, respondent No. 1 (the Sarpanch) threw a firecracker into the complainant’s compound.

When the firecracker was kicked back, a quarrel ensued where the respondents allegedly used caste-based slurs and issued death threats against the complainant, a Deputy Sarpanch.

The trial court acquitted the accused, citing a lack of independent witnesses despite 300-400 people being present, material contradictions in depositions, and existing political rivalry.

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with caste-based slurs in public view under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.

Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal when the trial court’s view is a "possible view" based on the evidence.

The Court applied Sections 504, 506, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It relied on the precedent in Sajan Sakhariya v. State of Kerala (AIR 2024 SC 4557), which establishes that every insult does not constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act unless directed at the victim specifically because of their caste identity.

Regarding appellate powers, the Court cited Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415 and Constable 907 Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025) 5 SCC 433, highlighting the "double presumption of innocence" in favor of an acquitted accused and the limited scope for interference unless the trial court's judgment is patently perverse.

The High Court observed that the prosecution’s case was weakened by significant contradictions between the complaint and the oral testimony of P.W.1.

It noted that while the rally contained hundreds of people, no independent witnesses were examined to corroborate the alleged slurs.

The Court found that the prior professional and political friction regarding Panchayat grants provided a plausible motive for false implication.

Applying Sajan Sakhariya, the Court determined that the prosecution failed to prove the insults were motivated by the complainant’s caste rather than the immediate quarrel over firecrackers.

Furthermore, the Court held that the trial court’s evaluation of evidence was reasonable and plausible; therefore, as per Chandrappa, the appellate court should not substitute its own view even if a different conclusion were possible.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s findings did not suffer from patent perversity or misreading of evidence.

The respondents were cleared of all charges under the IPC and the SC/ST Act.