Acquittal cannot be disturbed absent perversity where prosecution evidence leaves reasonable doubt.

The complainant, Kantaben, a member of a Scheduled Caste and a construction labourer, alleged that on 12 April 2009, Aminbhai quarrelled with her daughter and niece at the outskirts of the village and slapped Mansukhbhai when he intervened. It was further alleged that Aminbhai, accompanied by the other accused and armed with sticks, an axe and a farsi, came near the complainant’s house, assaulted her and her family members, and caused a bleeding head injury to Lalitaben.

The injured persons were taken first to Limbdi Government Hospital and thereafter to T.B. Hospital, Surendranagar.

An FIR, C.R. No. II-3021/2009, was registered at Panshina Police Station for offences under Sections 147, 148, 323, 403, 427, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

After investigation and trial in Special Atrocity Case No. 39 of 2009, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused on 17 March 2012. The State preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

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

2. Whether the Trial Court improperly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution?

3. Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal was illegal, perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference?

4. Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of the offences under the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act beyond reasonable doubt?

The Court applied Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC governing appeals against acquittal, along with the principle that although an appellate court may fully review and re-appreciate the evidence, an acquittal carries a strengthened or “double” presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed.

The Court considered Sections 147, 148, 323, 403, 427, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 149 IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

It held that an offence under the SC/ST Act requires proof of its statutory ingredients, including caste-based insult or humiliation and, where applicable, the requirement that the abuse occur in a place within public view; mere proof that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste is insufficient.

In this regard, the Court relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, 2024 AIR SC 4557, concerning the necessity of a caste-based intention, and Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama v. State of U.P., 2025 (4) Crimes 375, Karuppudayar v. State, 2025 AIR SC 705, and related authorities on the “public view” requirement.

The appellate principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, as reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 8 SCC 149, and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka, (2024) 9 SCC 169, were also applied.

The Court found that the prosecution evidence did not establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Although the complainant and several injured or eyewitness witnesses supported the occurrence, the medical evidence showed only simple injuries, which were also consistent with a fall or pushing during a scuffle; the doctors further stated that the injured persons had not named the assailants in their medical histories.

Specific roles were principally attributed to Accused Nos. 1 to 4, while no clear role was assigned to Accused Nos. 5 to 9, and some names allegedly given to the doctor did not correspond with the accused before the Court.

The material witnesses were related to the complainant, and the record disclosed possible prior political rivalry and enmity.

The Investigating Officers admitted that the witnesses had not stated during investigation that the accused had committed the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act; consequently, the essential caste-based ingredients were not proved.

The alleged weapons were not reliably recovered from the accused, and the panch witnesses did not support the recovery panchnama.

Applying the heightened appellate restraint applicable to an acquittal, the Court held that the Trial Court’s view was reasonable, supported by the evidence, and neither perverse nor legally unsustainable.

Finding no illegality, perversity or manifest error in the Trial Court’s judgment, the Court dismissed the State’s appeal and confirmed the order of acquittal dated 17 March 2012.

The bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Trial Court.