The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of substantial evidence in cases of alleged caste discrimination.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gondal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Sessions Case No. 93 of 2008 on 09-01-2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 188 (hereafter referred to as "Atrocities Act" for short).

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1 On 27th May, 2008 at around 09:30 pm, the complainant Rajeshbhai Govindbhai Makwana (Vankar) went into Chandan Hair Art for a hair cut and at that time, the accused No. 1 abused him with casteslurs and refused to give him a hair cut and asked him to leave the shop. Mansukhbhai Badhabhai Dafda, Mohanbhai Chanabhai Makwana and Bhalabhai Muljibhai Sarvaiya were also with him and Khodabhai Patel and another one Patel person of the village were sitting the shop. The complainant left Chandan Hair Art and went to the next shop where the accused No. 2 refused to cut their hair and abused them with caste-slurs. That both the accused refused to give the complainant and others with him a hair cut as they belonged to the scheduled caste and the complaint was filed by the complainant at Gondal Taluka Polic Station under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act and which was registered as IIC.R.No. 3094 of 2008.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gondal and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Sessions Case No. 93 of 2008.

2.3 The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh. 4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 5 and 6 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 24, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them under the Atrocities A