Acquittal affirmed where contradictory evidence failed to establish assault or Section 3(1)(x) ingredients.

On 18 September 1999, complainant Gauriben alleged that accused No. 1, Rambhaben, threw insects/weevils into the complainant’s house, abused her, and assaulted her with a stick.

The complainant further alleged that Rambhaben’s daughters assaulted her and that her son Mayur sustained an injury when he intervened.

Following investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Trial Court acquitted all the accused on 29 January 2008 in Sessions Case No. 188 of 2007.

The State challenged the acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error of fact or law in acquitting the respondents-accused.

2. Whether the Trial Court improperly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

3. Whether the judgment of acquittal suffered from illegality, perversity, or manifest error warranting appellate interference.

4. Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court considered the offences charged under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC read with Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.

Section 3(1)(x) required proof of the statutory ingredients of caste-based intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, including the requisite caste-related intent and the circumstances prescribed by the provision.

Relying on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, the Court held that an offence under the Atrocities Act is not established merely because the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe; the alleged conduct must be connected with the victim’s caste identity and intended to cause caste-based humiliation.

The Court also referred to Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama v. State of U.P., Karuppudayar v. State, Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), Talari Naresh v. State of Telangana and State of Gujarat v. Laxmanji Sadaji Thakor regarding the requirement of public view and the essential ingredients of offences under the Atrocities Act.

On appellate review of acquittal, the Court applied Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, as reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka: although an appellate court may fully reappreciate the evidence, an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible, absent perversity or manifest illegality.

The Court found material contradictions between the evidence of the complainant and her son regarding the fundamental facts and genesis of the incident.

The independent prosecution witnesses, examined as PW-4 to PW-8, did not support the prosecution case.

The medical evidence also weakened the alleged assault narrative: the Doctor’s evidence indicated that the injuries sustained by the complainant and her son could have resulted from a fall, and no injury was specifically attributable to a stick assault.

The alleged recovery of weapons was not proved, and the Investigating Officer had not collected documentary evidence establishing the complainant’s caste or community.

Consequently, the prosecution failed both to establish the alleged physical offences beyond reasonable doubt and to prove the essential caste-related ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.

Applying the heightened appellate restraint applicable to acquittals, the Court held that the Trial Court’s view was a reasonable one and was neither perverse nor legally infirm.

The Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence and its acquittal did not suffer from illegality, perversity, or manifest error warranting appellate interference.

The State’s appeal was accordingly dismissed, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29 January 2008 were confirmed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be sent back to the Trial Court.