Insult or intimidation attracts SC/ST Act only if specifically targeted at the victim's caste identity.

The State of Gujarat appealed an acquittal order dated 17.03.2012 passed by the Special Judge, Surendranagar

The prosecution alleged that on 15.04.2008, the five respondents, armed with deadly weapons like a hand sickle (Dhariya) and scythe sickle (Farsi), assaulted the complainant and others due to a grudge over Panchayat complaints

It was further alleged that the accused used caste-based slurs and threatened to kill the victims

Following an investigation, charges were framed under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC, and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The Trial Court acquitted the accused on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused for assault, criminal intimidation, and caste-based abuse beyond reasonable doubt

2. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence sufficient to warrant interference under Section 378 of the CrPC

3. Whether every insult or intimidation directed at a member of a Scheduled Caste automatically constitutes an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act

Sections 323, 504, 506(2), and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

Regarding appellate interference in acquittals, the Court relied on Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the "double presumption" of innocence in favor of the accused

It applied the principle from Sajan Sakhariya v. State of Kerala (2024 SC 4557), holding that an offence under the SC/ST Act requires the insult to be specifically targeted because the victim belongs to a protected class

the Court followed State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy regarding the appellate court's duty when in agreement with the trial court's reasoning

The High Court found significant discrepancies between the oral testimony and the documentary evidence. The complainant’s deposition (Exh. 18) contradicted the initial complaint (Exh. 19) regarding the specific words used for caste-based abuse

Key witnesses failed to support the prosecution: P.W.3 (Majuben) did not mention caste-based slurs, P.W.4 (Dineshbhai) turned hostile, and P.W.5 (Kavjibhai), the alleged primary victim of the assault, denied any physical altercation occurred

Furthermore, P.W.9 (the complainant's brother) testified that no physical assault took place and he saw no weapons

The Court noted the prosecution's failure to produce the alleged weapons or provide medical evidence for the purported injuries

Applying the Sajan Sakhariya precedent, the Court observed that the prosecution failed to prove that any alleged insult was specifically motivated by the victim's caste status

The Court held that the prosecution failed to provide direct evidence connecting the accused to the incident and failed to establish a motive

It concluded that the Trial Court’s view was a "possible view" and did not suffer from patent perversity or misreading of material evidence; thus, the presumption of innocence reinforced by the acquittal remained undisturbed

The Court ordered the Record and Proceedings to be remitted to the Trial Court