An SC/ST Act offence requires proof of intentional caste-based insult in public view.

The State appealed under Section 378(1)(3) CrPC against the trial court’s acquittal of the respondents of offences under Sections 323, 504 and 114 IPC, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The complainant alleged that, following an altercation over payment for plumbing work, the accused abused him by reference to his caste and assaulted him with sticks

The trial court acquitted the accused after considering the prosecution evidence, including testimony from 13 witnesses and documentary evidence

The State challenged that acquittal, contending that the evidence had been wrongly rejected

1. Whether the trial court was justified in acquitting the respondents

2. Whether the trial court properly appreciated the prosecution evidence, and whether its acquittal was affected by illegality, irregularity or perversity

Under Section 378 CrPC, an appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but must account for the double presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed

For the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act as referred to in the judgment, the prosecution had to establish that the accused intentionally insulted the complainant on the basis of his community at a public place or within public view

The court also referred to Gunjan @ Girija Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026 (0) INSC 468, and authorities concerning appellate review of acquittals

The High Court found no basis to overturn the acquittal.

The complainant reported the incident the following day, and the medical evidence described the injuries as simple and potentially consistent with plumbing work, rather than supporting the alleged weapon-based assault

His wife’s account of a knife injury was inconsistent with the complaint and the complainant’s testimony, while the complainant’s brother and the alleged eyewitness, Becharji, did not materially corroborate the prosecution case; Becharji did not support it

The evidence also failed to establish that the alleged caste-related words were spoken at a public place or within public view

In light of these deficiencies and the reinforced presumption of innocence following acquittal, the trial court’s conclusion was not shown to be perverse or legally erroneous

The appeal was dismissed, the acquittal was confirmed, the bail bond was cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the trial court