Not Every Insult Is An Offence Under SC-ST Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal

The High Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Judge (Atrocity), Mahesana, in a Special Atrocity Case, whereby the accused were acquitted of offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act

A Bench of Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sajan Sakhariya Vs. State of Kerala (2024) and reiterated: “every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, unless such insult or intimidation is started at a victim because he is a member of a particular Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, from the allegations made in the complaint, the prosecution has notproved that the accused is guilty of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989”.

Background

According to the prosecution's case, an incident occurred in the morning hours in a village where the complainant objected to certain persons sitting in an open plot opposite his house. It was alleged that thereafter the accused abused the complainant, assaulted him with a stick-like weapon, and used caste-related derogatory words in public. It was further alleged that the accused threatened the complainant not to disclose the incident.

After investigation, a chargesheet was filed, and the matter was committed to the Sessions Court as a Special Atrocity Case. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses and produced documentary evidence.

The trial court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. Aggrieved, the State preferred the present appeal.

Court’s Observation

The High Court undertook an independent and dispassionate evaluation of the evidence on record. It noted that several panch witnesses examined by the prosecution had not supported the case and had turned hostile. The panchnamas relating to the seizure of alleged weapons and the place of offence were not proved through reliable testimony.

The Court further observed that the prosecution had examined only relatives of the complainant as witnesses, though according to the complainant’s own version, several persons had gathered at the spot at the time of the incident. No independent witnesses from the locality were examined, even though the Investigating Officer admitted that houses of other community members were situated near the place of occurrence.

The Court also took note of the delay in lodging the complaint and the absence of a satisfactory explanation for such delay. It recorded that the complainant had admitted in cross-examination that he had previously filed multiple cases under the Atrocities Act and that in those cases the accused had been acquitted.

Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence, the Court concluded that there were contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. It held that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had intentionally insulted the complainant on the ground of his caste.

Relying on the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Sajan Sakhariya v. State of Kerala, the Court reiterated that the mere use of abusive language would not attract Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless the insult was specifically on account of the victim’s caste. The High Court held that, on the allegations made and the evidence led, this ingredient was not proved.

The Court also referred to settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, including the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the limited scope of interference unless the trial court’s findings are perverse or manifestly illegal. Finding that the view taken by the trial court was a possible and reasonable view, the High Court declined to interfere.

Conclusion

Holding that no infirmity, perversity, or misreading of evidence was demonstrated in the judgment of acquittal, the High Court dismissed the State’s appeal and affirmed the acquittal of the accused.

Cause Title: State of Gujarat v. Thakor Talaji Kunwarji (Expired & Abated) & Ors.

Appearance

Appellant (State): Shruti Pathak, APP

Respondents: Advocate Jigar G. Gadhavi

Click here to read/download Judgment