The appellate court upheld the acquittal, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

Judgment :

(MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.)

The appeal is time barred by 60 days. An application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the matter is taken up for hearing.

2. The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 253/2018 whereby, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent No.2 from the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellate complainant filed a complaint before the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act stating therein that complainant was working in a private hospital where one Varsha who was relative of a colleague was admitted for delivery. It was alleged that at the time of discharge, the accused respondent no.2, a relative of patient questioned the billing amount and started a brawl. It was alleged that when the complainant tried to pacify him, the accused respondent abused the complainant using caste oriented language.

4. The complaint was sent to the concerned Police station, where the FIR was registered and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the respondent no.2 for offence under Section 323 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondents for the aforesaid offences.

5. The prosecution in support of its case examined twelve witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded but no witness was examined on defence side.

6. After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the accused respondent No.2 from the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide its judgment dated 26.07.2024.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence mechanically acquitted the respondent from offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the fact that the complainant and prosecution witnesses have fortified the factum of beating and hurling abuses to the complainant in a public place. It is submitted that the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story and have categorically stated that the accused respondent had assaulted the complainant, therefore, adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondent but the court has granted benefit of doubt to the accused without any valid reason. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be adequately punished for the alleged offences.

8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State supported the arguments made by counsel for the appellant.

9. I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record.

10. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondent from the offences as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused respondent had hurled caste abuses in a public on account of the fact that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. It is settled proposition of law that the aggressor, who is not a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) person, cannot be booked under the 1989 Act merely because the victim of his insults or intimidatory act happened to be a SC/ST person. So far as the offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, the complainant has failed to produce any medical examination report fortifying any injury. The court below came to the conclu