Section 3(1)(x) requires proof of caste-based intent and utterance in a place within public view.

The complainant, a Scheduled Caste agricultural labourer/sharecropper, alleged that on 20 November 2009 the accused entered the vicinity of his tobacco field with cattle.

When Hiraben, the complainant’s sister-in-law, objected to the cattle damaging the crop, accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly assaulted her with wooden sticks, while accused No. 3 allegedly exhorted them to do so.

The accused were also alleged to have abused and threatened the complainant and Hiraben by using caste-related derogatory words.

Hiraben was taken to Thasra Government Hospital, and an FIR was registered under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

After investigation and committal, the Special Court framed charges and examined 13 prosecution witnesses.

By judgment dated 25 June 2012, the Trial Court acquitted all the accused.

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

1. Whether the Trial Court committed an error of fact or law in acquitting the respondents-accused

2. Whether the Trial Court improperly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution

3. Whether the judgment of acquittal was illegal, perverse, or otherwise warranted appellate interference

4. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the ingredients of Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) read with Section 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act

The Court applied Section 378(1) and (3) CrPC governing appeals against acquittal, and Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 IPC concerning voluntarily causing hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation and common intention/abetment as alleged.

It further applied Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, which required proof of intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with intent to humiliate, in a place within public view.

Relying on Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala, the Court held that caste-based insult is not established merely because the victim belongs to an SC/ST community; the insult must be motivated by the victim’s caste identity and intended to cause caste-based humiliation.

Relying on Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama v. State of U.P. and Karuppudayar v. State, it reiterated that “public view” requires a place where members of the public could witness or hear the alleged caste-based abuse.

On appellate review of acquittal, the Court applied Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, as reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka: although an appellate court may fully reappreciate the evidence, an acquittal carries a strengthened or “double” presumption of innocence, and interference is unwarranted where two reasonable views are possible.

The Court found that the prosecution evidence contained material inconsistencies.

The complaint did not state that the accused’s cattle had entered the field, and the testimonies of PW-1, PW-4 and PW-6 differed regarding whether PW-1 accompanied Hiraben to the hospital.

The medical evidence did not materially corroborate the alleged assault: the doctors found no external injury attributable to a stick blow, no injury on Hiraben’s back, and opined that the injuries could have resulted from a fall on a hard surface.

Hiraben also did not disclose the assailants’ names to the doctors.

The prosecution further failed to establish the caste status of the victim through properly collected and produced documentary evidence.

In relation to Section 3(1)(x), the alleged incident occurred in agricultural land where no member of the public was shown to be present; consequently, the essential requirement of an insult or abuse occurring within public view was not proved.

The evidence also failed to establish caste-based intent to humiliate.

Applying the heightened standard applicable to an appeal against acquittal, the Court held that the Trial Court’s view was reasonable and supported by the evidence, rather than perverse or manifestly illegal.

It held that the prosecution failed to prove the alleged IPC offences and the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act beyond reasonable doubt, and that the Trial Court had properly appreciated the evidence and rightly extended the benefit of doubt to the accused.

The State’s appeal was dismissed, the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25 June 2012 were confirmed, the bail bonds were cancelled, and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Trial Court.