The sufficiency of evidence to establish the offence under the Atrocity Act and the corroboration of the complainant's version of the incident by witnesses are crucial in reaching a decision in similar acquittal appeals.

Rajesh H. Shukla, J.

1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order rendered in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 25 of 1999 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) dated 30.6.2005 recording acquittal of the Respondents - Original Accused persons for the offence under Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The facts of the case briefly summarized are as follows.

2. On 20.3.1996 at about 11:30 am, the Respondents who are the Trustees of Anupam Education Trust had arranged a meeting, and at that time, it is the case of the complainant that he was abused with the utterances regarding the caste which led to the aforesaid complaint at Exh. 11.

3. After the investigation was over, as the offence is triable by the court of Sessions, the charge was framed and the trial court proceeded with the trial.

4. In order to bring the charges leveled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined the witnesses including the complainant and other witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence.

5. After the recording of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was over, the learned Special Judge recorded the further statement of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.

6. After hearing the learned APP as well as learned Advocate for the complainant and the learned Advocate for the defence the learned Special Judge rendered the judgment recording acquittal which has led to the present Appeal.

7. Heard learned Advocate Shri R.A. Sejpal for the Appellant -Original Complainant, learned APP Shri H.L. Jani for the Respondent No. 1-State of Gujarat and learned Advocate Shri Rajesh K. Kanani for Respondent No. 2. As the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have expired the appeal has been abated qua them.

8. Learned Advocate Shri R.A. Sejpal for the Appellant - Original Complainant has referred to the papers and the complaint at Exh. 11. He emphasized with regard to the manner in which the incident had occurred and submitted that the offence which require utterances in the public view would stand satisfied as it was made in presence of the other two persons. Learned Advocate Shri Sejpal therefore referred to two aspects; one is with regard to the investigation that it was not investigated by the I.O. of the rank of Dy. S.P. and therefore the whole proceedings are vitiated and further he has also referred to the reasons recorded for the findings and acquittal and submitted that they are erroneous. Learned Advocate Shri Sejpal has referred to the provisions of the Atrocity Act and the Rules in support of his submissions.

9. Learned Advocate Shri Rajesh K. Kanani for the Respondent -Original Accused has referred to the judgment and the reasons recorded for the findings and acquittal and submitted that earlier as recorded in the judgment, the complainant had filed Revision Application No. 224 of 2004 which was rejected. Thereafter he had also made an application Exh. 73 at the fag end for the purpose of bringing on record the certificate regarding the caste. Learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Kanani submitted that in spite of all the opportunity granted, the Sessions Court has held that the complainant has failed to establish the offence and recorded the acquittal which is just and proper. He submitted that earlier, first the revision application was filed, thereafter application Exh. 61 was given to examine one of the two independent person Sakraji which was granted and the accused persons have also given the consent. However, subsequently, the same was not pressed by the complainant and ultimately the said Sakraji was not examined as a witness. He therefore submitted that one of the witnesses who has been examined has not corroborated the version of the incident as stated by the complainant. Learned Advocate Shri Rajesh Kanani has referred to the testimony of witness at Exh. 20 and submitted that though he has stated about the quarrel, he has not corrobora