Mere insult or intimidation without specific caste-based motivation does not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act.

The State of Gujarat filed an appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC challenging the acquittal of the respondents by the Special Judge (Atrocity), Mahesana, for offences under Sections 504, 506(2), and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The complainant, Kantibhai Vankar, alleged that on 13.01.2011, the accused stopped, abused, and threatened him with death because he had filed an encroachment complaint against them.

During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, including the complainant (P.W. 1) and two alleged eyewitnesses (P.W. 4 and 5).

During the pendency of the appeal, Respondent No. 1 died, and the appeal stood abated against him.

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt given material contradictions in the complainant's testimony.

2. Whether the alleged insults and intimidation were specifically targeted at the victim due to his caste identity to attract Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST Act.

3. Whether the appellate court can interfere with an acquittal when the trial court’s reasoning is plausible and not perverse.

The Court applied Sections 504 (intentional insult), 506(2) (criminal intimidation), and 114 (abettor present) of the IPC, alongside Section 3(1)(10) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It relied on Sajan Sakhariya v. State of Kerala (AIR 2024 SC 4557), which clarifies that an offence under the SC/ST Act requires that the insult or intimidation be directed at the victim specifically because they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.

Regarding the scope of acquittal appeals, the court applied the "double presumption of innocence" principle from Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415] and Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana (AIR 1995 SC 280), holding that an acquittal should not be disturbed if the trial court’s view is reasonable.

The Court observed that the prosecution’s case rested on unstable evidence.

The complainant (P.W. 1) admitted in cross-examination that Accused No. 1 was not present at the time of the incident, directly contradicting the complaint (Exh. 10).

Furthermore, the complainant failed to provide the specific abusive or caste-based words allegedly used, rendering the testimony vague.

Crucially, both independent eyewitnesses (P.W. 4 and 5) and the panch witnesses (P.W. 2 and 3) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution.

The Court reasoned that without direct evidence or corroborated testimony, the motive and the act of intimidation were not established.

Under the limited scope of Section 378 CrPC, the Court found no manifest illegality or perversity in the trial court’s findings, noting that the trial court correctly identified the lack of evidence connecting the accused to the crime.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of the SC/ST Act.

The Court ordered the record and proceedings to be remitted to the concerned trial court.