### Mere Insults Without Caste-Based Intent Do Not Constitute Offences Under the Atrocity Act The High Court of Gujarat affirmed an acquittal, ruling that verbal insults or intimidations do not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless specifically targeted at a victim's caste identity. The Court emphasized that in the absence of independent witnesses and clear evidence of caste-based intent, the prosecution fails to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The State of Gujarat preferred this appeal against the acquittal order dated 01.02.2008 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad

The prosecution alleged that on 16.02.1998, the accused assaulted the complainant, Sureshbhai, with a stick and used caste-based slurs, violating Sections 323, 294(B), 504, and 506(1) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act

Following an investigation and committal, the trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt

The State appealed on the grounds that the trial court misappreciated evidence and ignored reliable testimony

1. Whether the trial court committed a manifest error or reached a perverse conclusion in acquitting the accused based on the evidence on record

2. Whether the alleged verbal insults regarding the complainant's caste were sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act

The court applied Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding appeals against acquittal

It relied on the principle from Sajan Sakhariya v. State of Kerala and others (AIR 2024 SC 4557), which establishes that every insult or intimidation does not constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act unless it is specifically directed at a victim because of their membership in a Scheduled Caste or Tribe

Furthermore, the court applied the standard for appellate interference in acquittals as defined in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007 4 SCC 415), emphasizing the "double presumption" of innocence and that finding of facts should not be disturbed if two reasonable conclusions are possible

The High Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps.

The medical certificate (Exh. 21) failed to name the accused and noted only minor injuries

Testimony from P.W.4 (a neighbor) contradicted the complainant, suggesting the dispute was actually related to the complainant’s liquor business and noting that both parties were armed with sticks

The Court observed that the prosecution relied solely on interested witnesses (family members) and failed to examine independent witnesses to corroborate the alleged caste-based insults

Applying the Sajan Sakhariya precedent, the Court noted that the prosecution failed to prove the essential nexus between the insult and the victim's caste identity

Finally, the Court determined that the trial court's view was a "possible view" and lacked any manifest illegality or perversity that would justify overturning an acquittal

The Court held that in the absence of direct, independent evidence and given the presence of material contradictions in witness testimonies, the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt

The trial court's reasoning was found to be just and proper, necessitating no interference by the appellate court under the established rules of prudence for acquittal appeals