Caste Abuse Must Be Proved With Specificity And Intention – Mere Allegation Does Not Attract Section 3(1)(x) Of Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court

“Where Two Views Are Possible, High Court Must Stay Its Hands – Acquittal Is Not To Be Reversed Lightly”, In a judgment reaffirming the appellate restraint mandated under Section 378 of the CrPC, the Gujarat High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the acquittal of four accused in a case involving charges of assault, criminal intimidation, and caste-based abuse under the IPC and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Sitting in criminal appellate jurisdiction, Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker observed:

“It is a settled principle that when the trial court has acquitted the accused upon appreciation of evidence, there exists a double presumption of innocence. The appellate court must not interfere unless the judgment is perverse or manifestly illegal.”

“Contradictions Are Not Mere Lapses – They Strike At The Root Of Prosecution’s Credibility”

The prosecution had alleged that on 14.11.2004, the complainant and his daughter-in-law were attacked with weapons by the accused after the complainant objected to cattle grazing in his field. The complainant further claimed that caste-based abuses were hurled during the attack.

However, Justice Thaker meticulously dissected the evidence led by the prosecution, noting serious contradictions and inconsistencies that went to the very core of the case.

“Prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and his daughter-in-law, gave inconsistent versions. Panch witnesses turned hostile. Medical records disproved the claim that the injured was unconscious for several days.”

The Court found that the prosecution failed to establish even the basic sequence of events, let alone the identity of specific assailants or intent behind the alleged abuse. Crucially, neighbours who were cited as witnesses were not examined, and medical evidence contradicted the nature and gravity of the injuries alleged.

“Caste Abuse Must Be Proved With Specificity And Intention – Mere Allegation Does Not Attract Section 3(1)(x) Of Atrocities Act”

On the core charge under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the High Court found that the oral testimony of the complainant contradicted his own written complaint.

In the complaint, the complainant had alleged that all four accused had hurled caste-based abuse, but in court he attributed it only to Accused No. 2. His daughter-in-law also attributed the caste-based insult only to one accused, leading the Court to conclude:

“Contradictions as to which accused made the caste-based insult, coupled with the lack of corroboration or intent, render the charge under the Atrocities Act unsustainable.”

The Court relied on the Supreme Court ruling in Sajan Sakhariya v. State of Kerala, AIR 2024 SC 4557, holding that:

“Not every insult or intimidation constitutes an offence under the Atrocities Act. The insult must be solely and intentionally targeted at a person because of their caste status.”

“Mere Possibility of Different View Does Not Justify Interference in Appeal Against Acquittal”

Rejecting the contention of the State that the trial court had misappreciated evidence, Justice Thaker invoked a long line of Supreme Court precedents that strictly circumscribe appellate powers in appeals against acquittal.

“Unless the acquittal suffers from patent perversity, is based on misreading or omission of vital evidence, or where no two views are possible, the High Court must not interfere,” the Court said, referring to Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) 4 SCC 415, Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, and Rajesh Singh v. State of UP.

The Court further reiterated:

“It is not the function of the appellate court to rewrite the judgment where the trial court’s view is possible and plausible. The trial judge had the advantage of observing witness demeanour.”

“Appeal Fails to Dislodge Trial Court’s Reasoning – No Perverse Finding, No Miscarriage of Justice”

Finding that the trial court had meticulously weighed the inconsistencies, the hostile witnesses, and the lack of medical corroboration, the High Court concluded that:

“No compelling ground has been shown for this Court to interfere with the acquittal. The view taken by the trial court is both possible and reasonable.”

The Court found no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, especially in its conclusion that the essential ingredients of Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2) IPC were not established, and caste-based abuse under the Atrocities Act remained unsubstantiated in intent and fact.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of all four accused was confirmed.

Appellate Caution Is the Constitutional Mandate In Acquittal Appeals

This judgment once again reinforces a foundational principle of criminal jurisprudence: presumption of innocence is not just a trial-level safeguard, but one that deepens post-acquittal. The appellate courts are constitutionally and jurisprudentially bound to respect that double presumption unless the trial court’s findings are demonstrably perverse or legally unsustainable.

Justice Sanjeev Thaker’s ruling is a reminder that in criminal law, proof beyond reasonable doubt remains the golden threshold, and appellate courts must exercise restraint, not re-evaluation, where that threshold has not been demonstrably crossed.

Date of Decision: 19 January 2026