An offence under Section 3(1)(10) requires intentional caste-based abuse in public view.

On 10 January 2010, the complainant, Jagdishbhai Mangalbhai Jadav, alleged that while travelling on his motorcycle with PW-4 towards his brother’s house, the respondents intercepted him near a government clinic, demanded that he resign from his union post, abused and threatened him, and assaulted him with kicks and fist blows.

The complainant subsequently went to Shardaben Hospital and lodged an FIR alleging offences under Sections 323, 506(1) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (“Atrocities Act”).

The prosecution examined seven witnesses and produced six documentary exhibits; however, the trial court acquitted all the accused in Special Sessions Case (Atrocity) No. 38 of 2011 on 31 July 2012.

The State preferred an appeal against acquittal under Section 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents from the offences under Sections 323, 506(1) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act.

2. Whether the trial court properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution.

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

The court applied Sections 323, 506(1) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, requiring the prosecution to establish the alleged assault, criminal intimidation, common participation and the statutory ingredients of caste-based abuse beyond reasonable doubt.

In relation to Section 3(1)(10), the court relied on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, AIR 2024 SC 4557, and Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 (0) INSC 468, for the principle that caste-based abusive words must be uttered in a public place and within public view, with the intention of insulting the victim on the basis of community.

On appeals against acquittal, the court followed Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415; 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, holding that although an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, the accused benefit from a strengthened double presumption of innocence, and an acquittal should not be disturbed where two reasonable views are possible or unless the trial court’s conclusion is manifestly illegal or perverse.

The High Court found that the prosecution evidence did not establish the alleged assault or intimidation beyond reasonable doubt.

Although the complainant stated that he had been assaulted, the medical evidence showed no internal or external injuries, and the doctor confirmed this in cross-examination.

The hospital history also did not disclose the names of the alleged assailants.

The evidence of the complainant and supporting witnesses was materially inconsistent, no independent witness corroborated the prosecution case, and the alleged threat was not satisfactorily proved.

The prosecution also failed to prove that any caste-based abuse was uttered in a public place and within public view with the requisite intention to insult the complainant on the basis of his community, thereby failing to establish the ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act.

Applying the restrictive principles governing appeals against acquittal, the High Court held that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonable view of the evidence and was neither illegal nor perverse.

Finding no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned judgment, the court dismissed the State’s appeal and confirmed the order of acquittal dated 31 July 2012.

The bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court.