Acquittal upheld where delay in FIR and medical treatment remained unexplained despite witnesses being related.

The State appealed against the acquittal of four accused by the Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa, in Special Case No. 137 of 2007.

The complainant alleged that on 09.01.2007, while in a queue for election ID cards at a primary school, the accused used caste-based slurs and assaulted him with fist blows, a stick, and a knife.

The trial court acquitted the respondents on 13.12.2007, citing the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The State contended that the trial court ignored reliable evidence and placed undue emphasis on contradictions.

1. Whether the trial court committed a manifest error or perversity in acquitting the accused despite the oral and documentary evidence on record.

2. Whether the alleged insults and physical assault satisfy the ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court applied Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act.

It relied on the principle from *Sajan Sakhariya v. State of Kerala* (AIR 2024 SC 4557), holding that insults only constitute an Atrocity Act offence if directed at a victim specifically because of their caste membership.

Regarding acquittal appeals, it applied the doctrine from *Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka* (2007) 4 SCC 415 and *Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana* (AIR 1995 SC 280), which dictates that if two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court must not disturb an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse.

The High Court found several lacunae in the prosecution's case.

It noted an unexplained delay in filing the complaint and seeking medical treatment, both occurring a day after the incident.

The medical history recorded by PW-2 (Doctor) failed to name the accused, mentioning only "opposition".

Furthermore, key independent witnesses and the photographer (PW-10) failed to provide specific roles for the four accused or verify the use of weapons.

The Court observed that most witnesses were related to the complainant (nephew, uncle, aunt), while non-related bystanders in the queue of 70 people were not examined.

Following the *Sajan Sakhariya* precedent, the Court held that the alleged slurs did not automatically attract the Atrocity Act as there was no evidence the intent was specifically caste-driven harassment.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the trial court’s findings were neither infirm nor irregular.

The Court reaffirmed that in the absence of perversity, the double presumption of innocence in favor of the acquitted accused must be maintained.