Caste-Based Insult Not In 'Public View', Eyewitness Didn't Support Prosecution: Gujarat High Court Upholds SC/ST Act Acquittal

The Gujarat High Court upheld the acquittal of three persons accused of using caste-based slurs and assaulting the complainant, observing that the eyewitness did not support the prosecution case in proving that the alleged derogatory words were used with an intent to insult in public. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 274]

It was alleged that the accused persons knew that the complainant belonged to the Scheduled Caste–Chamar Community and thus knowingly used caste-based slur against the complainant in public thereby committing offence punishable under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It was also alleged that the accused had assaulted the complainant with sticks. The trial court had acquitted the accused persons, against which State moved the high court. 

Justice Hemant M Prachchhak in his order noted that from the evidence of the three police officers examined by the prosecution, it appeared that the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act were snot proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

"As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment, the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act are required to be proved by the prosecution. In particular, it must be established that the alleged derogatory words were used by the accused with an intent to insult the person concerned at a public place or within public view. Only in such circumstances can an offence under Section 3(1)(10) be established. In the present case, none of the witnesses has stated anything regarding the use of derogatory words by the respondents-accused at a public place or within public view," the court said. 

The court said that except for the complainant, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated the above facts and deposed that the respondents-accused caused any injury to the complainant.

Even the eyewitness, the court said, had not supported the prosecution's case at all.

"Therefore, after considering all these facts, the Trial Court, in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment, recorded detailed reasons after appreciating the evidence of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges against the respondents-accused. Considering the facts of the case and the impugned judgment and order, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court," the court said.

With respect to allegations of assault the court said that the injuries suffered by the complainant–a plumber, could have been caused while performing plumbing work.

"Even the injury found near the right thumb could also have been caused while performing pipe-fitting or plumbing work. Thus, it appears that the injuries described by the complainant are not supported by the medical evidence," the court said. 

The high court said that there was "no credible evidence" to connect the present accused with the alleged crime and the evidence on record is not so convincing to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused have committed the alleged crime.

The court dismissed the State's appeal noting that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt.