Synopsis

The appellant (original complainant) filed an appeal against the acquittal of the accused for offences including caste‑based abuse and assault. The prosecution alleged that the accused, at a taxi stand, abused the complainant with casteist slurs (“you are supposed to clean the streets and not to drive the car”), assaulted him, and threatened him. The trial court acquitted the accused on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that: (i) the panch witnesses turned hostile; (ii) the medical evidence did not conclusively prove assault (injuries could be self‑inflicted, chest pain complaint subjective); (iii) the complainant delayed reporting and there was no independent eyewitness; (iv) even in the complaint and statements, the specific caste‑based words were not recorded; (v) under the Atrocities Act, every insult does not amount to an offence unless the insult is hurled because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Applying the principles governing appeals against acquittal (double presumption of innocence), the court refused to interfere.

Court: High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker

Date of Judgment: 24th April 2026

Citation: Criminal Appeal (Against Acquittal) No. 192 of 2025 (unreported)

Core Law: Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 (appeal against acquittal); Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323, 504, 506(1); Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(5-A); Bombay Police Act – Section 135

2. Legal Framework

Major laws and provisions involved

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 (appeal against acquittal)

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace), 506(1) (criminal intimidation)

• Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Sections 3(1)(R) (intentional insult or intimidation with intent to humiliate a member of SC/ST in public view), 3(1)(S) (abuse or assault with intent to dishonour), 3(2)(5-A)

• Bombay Police Act – Section 135 (penalty for misconduct in public place)

Key legal principles applied

Appeal against acquittal – limited scope: In an appeal under Section 378, the High Court has full power to reappreciate evidence, but there is a double presumption in favour of the accused: (i) presumption of innocence; (ii) reinforcement of that presumption by the acquittal. The appellate court will not disturb the acquittal unless the trial court’s view is perverse, unreasonable, or based on no evidence. If two reasonable conclusions are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted.

Not every insult under the Atrocities Act – mu

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.