IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
FARJAND ALI
Brij Mohan @ Raja S/o Nathraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
FARJAND ALI, J.
1. By way of the instant appeal, appellant has challenged the judgment of conviction and the sentence dated 19.09.1994 imposed by the learned Special Judge (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act Cases) No.3, Jodhpur in Sessions Case No.30/1994, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Offence for which convicted | Substantive sentence | Fine and default sentence |
| Section 3 (1)(X) of the SC/ST Act | Six Months SI | Fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to further undergo two months SI |
| Section 323 of the IPC | Three Months SI | Fine of Rs.500/- and in default to further undergo one month’s SI |
Being aggrieved by the said judgment, the appellant has approached this Court seeking reversal of the findings recorded by the Trial Court.
2. The prosecution case, as unfolded from the impugned judgment, is that a report (Exhibit P-1) was lodged by the complainant Rajan Solanki on 22.08.1991, alleging that he was intentionally insulted, intimidated, and physically assaulted by the accused by referring to his caste. It was alleged that such conduct amounted to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in addition to an offence under Section 323 IPC.
2.
To convict under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, the alleged insult must occur in a place 'within public view,' which was not established in this case.
A conviction under the SC/ST Act requires conclusive proof of intentional insult based on caste; mere verbal disputes over monetary issues do not fulfill this requirement.
Mere allegations without evidence of public view do not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act unless insults target caste identity in a public context.
Procedural violations in criminal investigations can lead to the reversal of convictions under special laws protecting marginalized communities.
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, confirming the double presumption of innocence for the accused.
An acquittal by the trial Court carries a double presumption of innocence, and the appellate court should not disturb it unless there is a manifest error or perverse conclusion.
Sufficient evidence must link alleged acts to an intent to humiliate based on caste identity for the application of the SC/ST Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.