The need for acceptable evidence beyond reasonable doubt in cases of intentional insult or intimidation for humiliating a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within the public view.

A.I.S. Cheema, J.

The State has filed this Criminal Appeal against acquittal of Respondents - original accused Nos. 1 to 4 (hereafter referred as "accused Nos. 1 to 4") under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("Act" in brief). The accused were acquitted also of offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in brief).

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is as under:-

(A). Complainant Suresh Sonu Padame (PW-1) (hereafter referred as "complainant") filed report at Police Station Pachora on 2nd December 2002. He referred to his family and stated that he is residing at Bambrul (Raniche), Tq-Pachora and works at the field of one Onkar Narayan Wagh. About 8-10 days back accused No. 1 Yuvraj along with his colleagues was sitting near board of Sambhaji Brigade and when complainant was passing, accused No. 1 Yuvraj told him as to on whose assurance he has become arrogant and had abused him. Complainant had told him that he had not become arrogant on the assurance of any body. Subsequently on 30th November 2002 complainant after finishing work, had gone home and then to his sister Kasturabai and was returning back. On the way, he met friend Sultan Rasul. They were going by road and were in front of Keli group of Chandrakant Wagh. Time was about 8.30 p.m. Accused No. 1 Yuvraj was there and he was under influence of liquor. He again told complainant as to on whose assurance he has become arrogant and started abusing loudly saying "SALYA CHAMTYA CHUMTYA". He started giving abuses on the basis of caste. Hearing him, his friends Dagadu Bajirao Gavali (accused No. 4), Arun Ramu Gavali (accused No. 2) and his relative Pundlik Ramchandra Gavali (accused No. 3) came there and started threatening the complainant and abused him by calling him "CHAMTYA" and saying that he had become arrogant and they knew on whose assurance he had become arrogant. All the four accused persons started calling him "CHAMBHARDYA" and saying as to how he will reside in the village. The accused claimed that they will see him and gave dirty abuses and slapped and boxed him on face and head. The F.I.R. refers to Sultan Rasul, Ramlal Baburao Lohar (PW-2), Jagdish Padame intervening and having seen the incident. Complainant claimed that the villagers had tried to explain to him, but however as the accused were not in condition to understand, he was filing the complaint late. He had invisible injury and wanted to go to the doctor.

(B). The complaint was received by PW-5 Vasant Patil, A.S.I. Pachora and offence came to be registered at Crime No. 66 of 2002 on 2nd December 2002. The same was investigated by Sub Divisional Police Officer Tejbahadur Singh (PW-6). He recorded Spot Panchnama. He procured caste certificates of the complainant and the accused. Caste certificate Exhibit 30 of the complainant had been issued by PW-4 Tahsildar Preetam Tayade. The investigating officer PW-6 Tejbahadur Singh claimed that accused persons were Hindu Marathas. The statements of witnesses were recorded. After investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed and the accused were prosecuted.

3. The defence of the accused persons is that of denial. According to them, in the village there are two political groups. One is of M.L.A. Onkar Wagh who belongs to a political party (I will refer to that as "R.C. Group") and they have been workers of another political party (to which I will refer as "S-S" Group) and thus out of political vengeance, the complainant who was labourer of the M.L.A., has filed false case and the witnesses examined are also of the same group.

4. Trial Court considered the evidence of seven witnesses who were examined by the prosecution and found the accused persons not guilty of any of the offences. The trial Court held that the investigation had not been done by Police Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police appointed in terms of R