Acquittal upheld where identity contradictions and absence of public view created reasonable doubt.

The complainant, Kalubhai Ramjibhai Parmar, a member of a Scheduled Caste and a security guard at Moksh Temple/crematorium, alleged that on 4 July 2009 at approximately 11:30 p.m., the accused arrived in a drunken condition, abused him, and assaulted him when he refused to open the gate.

It was alleged that accused No. 2 caught the complainant by the neck and accused No. 1 inflicted a knife injury.

An FIR was registered at Bhavnagar City “D” Division Police Station for offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

After investigation and committal, the trial court acquitted the accused in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 5 of 2012 by judgment dated 2 October 2012.

The State preferred the present appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the accused of the offences alleged against them?

Whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution?

Whether the impugned judgment of acquittal suffered from any illegality, irregularity, or perversity warranting appellate interference?

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the identity and involvement of the accused in the assault and the ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act?

The Court applied Sections 323, 324, 504 and 114 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and the appellate jurisdiction under Section 378 CrPC.

For an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must establish that abusive or insulting words were uttered against a person belonging to an SC/ST community on the basis of that person’s caste or tribe, in a place within public view.

The Court relied on 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, for the principles governing appeals against acquittal: although the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, an acquittal carries a double presumption of innocence, and interference is unwarranted where two reasonable views are possible.

The Court also referred to Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, AIR 2024 SC 4557, and subsequent decisions concerning the requirements of Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.

The Court found material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

The complainant stated that the incident occurred at about 11:30 p.m., whereas the security contractor testified that he received the complainant’s call at about 11:00 p.m.; further, the complainant initially did not disclose the assailants’ names to the contractor.

The medical evidence also created doubt: before the doctor, the complainant named only “Jagdish,” said to be accused No. 2, as the assailant, whereas the FIR attributed the knife injury to accused No. 1.

Since the accused were allegedly unknown to the complainant, no test identification parade was conducted and no satisfactory evidence explained their identification.

The Court further noted that accused No. 1 himself belonged to the SC/ST community, and that the complainant admitted that no person other than the accused and himself was present at the place of occurrence.

Consequently, the prosecution failed to establish the caste-based insult in a place within public view, an essential ingredient of Section 3(1)(10).

Applying the heightened restraint applicable to an appeal against acquittal, the Court held that the trial court’s view was a reasonable one and was neither perverse nor manifestly illegal.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove their identity, involvement, and the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, including the ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the trial court’s judgment of acquittal dated 2 October 2012 was confirmed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.