Caste-Based Insults Must Show Intent – Mere Abuse Not Enough for Atrocities Act: Gujarat High Court Upholds Acquittal

“Every insult or intimidation does not attract the Atrocities Act unless directed at the victim because of their caste status” – In a detailed and precedent-conscious judgment, the Gujarat High Court on December 4, 2025, dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the State of Gujarat challenging the acquittal of the accused in a case involving alleged assault and caste-based abuse under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

The Court, while deciding R/Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 378 of the CrPC, affirmed the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt due to multiple contradictions, absence of corroboration, and lack of specific intent required under the Atrocities Act.

Insult or Abuse Must Be With Caste-Specific Intent to Attract Section 3(1)(10) of Atrocities Act

One of the key legal issues was whether the use of abusive language, allegedly involving caste-based slurs, was sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act (now renumbered as Section 3(1)(r) post-amendment).

The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Sajan Sakhariya vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2024 SC 4557, and held:

“Every insult or intimidation would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act, unless such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because they belong to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe.” [Para 8.4]

The High Court found that the prosecution had not established this caste-based intent, and the alleged words, even if abusive, did not demonstrate that the insult was specifically targeted because of caste. The FIR and testimonies lacked clarity on this point

Contradictory Testimonies and Missing Names – Acquittal Confirmed

Justice Sanjeev J. Thaker, after independently reviewing the testimony of the complainant (PW-1 Jagabhai Rathod) and his sister-in-law (PW-7 Savitaben), noted serious contradictions, such as:

• The complainant claimed he was assaulted by unknown persons, whereas the FIR later named specific accused.

• Accused No. 1 (Hanubhai Bodubhai) was not named in the FIR.

• Discrepancies existed regarding who accompanied the complainant to the hospital, and whether the injuries were even caused by the accused.

The Court further held:

“The prosecution has not proved the fact that Hanubhai Bodubhai had a stick in his hand, nor that any specific injury was caused by him. Testimonies on this point are contradictory.” [Para 8.3]

Trial Court’s Findings Based on Reasonable View – No Interference Warranted in Acquittal

Reaffirming the principles governing appeals against acquittals, the Court cited Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka [(2007) 4 SCC 415], noting that:

“There is double presumption in favour of the accused in an appeal against acquittal – the presumption of innocence, and the further presumption from the acquittal itself.” [Para 15]

It further cited the Supreme Court’s caution in Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana and State of Karnataka v. Hemareddy that appellate courts must not overturn acquittals unless the findings are perverse, unreasonable, or disregard material evidence.

The High Court found no such infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning, observing:

“The trial court has rightly evaluated the facts and the evidence. There was no direct evidence connecting the accused with the incident, and the alleged motive was also not established.” [Para 10]

Reiterating Scope of Section 378 CrPC – Caution in Overturning Acquittals

Justice Thaker reiterated that while appellate courts have full power to reassess and reconsider evidence, such power must be exercised with restraint when the trial court’s view is plausible.

He observed: “The learned trial Court has rightly considered all the evidence on record and passed the impugned judgment. The learned APP is not in a position to show any contrary material or that the approach is vitiated by manifest illegality.” [Para 9]

Thus, applying settled principles and giving due weight to presumption of innocence, the Court held that no interference was warranted.

The Gujarat High Court’s judgment in State of Gujarat v. Hanubhai Bodubhai Bhatti & Ors. fortifies the judicial standard that criminal conviction, particularly under stringent laws like the SC/ST Act, requires specific and credible evidence of intent.

While caste-based atrocities must be dealt with sternly, courts must also ensure that the evidence satisfies the legal threshold, particularly when serious criminal charges carry grave social and penal consequences.

The ruling underscores that mere use of abusive language without proven caste-based intent does not constitute an offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, and that acquittals will not be disturbed unless there is compelling and clear error in judicial reasoning.

Date of Decision: 04 December 2025