Criminal Appeal dismissed. Single Judge upheld acquittal on charges under SC/ST Act and IPC due to insufficient evidence and failure to prove offence despite alleged caste abuse and complaint delay.
Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. Judgment of Trial Court acquitting respondent stands.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.723 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra. .. Appellant.
v/s.
Namdeo Gabaji Pavshe. .. Respondent.
Shri A.M.Shringarpure, APP for State.
Ms.Prachi Tatake, h/f Mrs. P.P.Kakade, advocate for
respondent.
CORAM: V.M.KANADE, J.
DATE : 25TH NOVEMBER, 2004,
P.C. :-
. Heard the learned APP for the State and Ms.
Prachi Tatake, advocate appearing for the respondent.
The State has filed an appeal challenging the Judgment
and Order passed by the V AD-HOC Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No.15 of 2002. By the
said Judgment and order dated 7/1/2003, V AD-HOC
Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondent
accused of the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x)
of the Schedule Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 323 of the Indian
2
Penal Code. The prosecution case is that the accused
slapped the complainant and abused him in the name of
his caste. The date of the incident in question is
2/4/2002. Complaint however is lodged on 11/4/2004.
Thus there is delay of 9 days in filing the complaint.
Prosecution has not given any explanation while
explaining delay caused in filing the case. Apart from
this, the respondent accused addressed the complainant
as "mahardya". The first question which falls for
consideration as to whether uttering of the said words
amounts to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the
Atrocities Act. This Court in number of cases has held
that mere utterance of the caste of the complainant by
itself does not amount to an offence under the
Atrocities Act. The Trial Court has given cogent
reasons while coming to the conclusion that the
prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the accused has committed offence. I do not find any
reason to interfere in the said order passed by the
Trial Court. Leave is refused. Appeal is dismissed.
sd/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether uttering the caste of the complainant amounts to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act.
Whether the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt given nine days delay in filing the complaint.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Namdeo Gabaji Pavshe
V.M.KANADE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court