Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1181 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Bhikhabhai Karsanbhai Gadhvi

2024-05-14

VAIBHAVI D.NANAVATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Though served, respondents No.1 and 2 have chosen not to appear. Learned Advocate Mr. Neeraj Soni is appointed as Amicus to assist the Court. 2. The accused No.1–Bhikhabhai had expired on 29.08.2013. The Death Certificate is produced on record qua the accused No.1. Therefore, the Appeal stands abated qua accused No.1. 3. By way of this Appeal, the Appellant – State has felt aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.04.2007 of the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Khambalia, in Special Criminal Case No.44 of 2006 whereby the respondents herein were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 332, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘the Atrocities Act’). 4. The case in brief and the incident which occurred on 13.09.2006 are as under :- a) The complainant – Nagabhai Rudabhai Makwana gave a complaint before the Jamjodhpur Police Station on 13.09.2006 to the effect that he was residing alongwith his family and was serving as Assistant Traffic Superintendent. It is alleged in the complaint that on 13.09.2006 at about 21.00 hours, the complainant returned back on his scooter after attending his service and when he reached near Shivam Shop near Patel Samaj Road one motorcycle came from behind and intercepted the complainant’s scooter. The motorcycle was being driven by the respondent – accused No.1 who was serving in Sonalkrupa Travels. As the complainant was serving at Jamjodhpur S.T. Depot, he knew the respondent- accused. The respondent-accused asked the complainant as to why he had stopped the buses of the accused travel’s company as they have alleged that the complainant had stopped two buses and thereafter, it is alleged that the accused started to give foul abuses related to his caste. In the meantime, the accused – respondent No.2 who was serving in Momai Travels Company, also came to the spot and had started giving foul abuses relating to his caste. It is also alleged that the respondents – accused gave kick and fist blows to the complainant and torn the clothes worn by the complainant. The respondents threatened the complainant to kill him. b) A complaint was registered before the Jamkhambhalia Police Station as I-36 of 2006 under the above mentioned Sections. It is also alleged that the respondents – accused gave kick and fist blows to the complainant and torn the clothes worn by the complainant. The respondents threatened the complainant to kill him. b) A complaint was registered before the Jamkhambhalia Police Station as I-36 of 2006 under the above mentioned Sections. Statement of the concerned witnesses were recorded, panchnama of the place of incident as also the inquest panchanama was also recorded. The Recovery panchnama was drawn in the presence of the panch witnesses and thereafter, the complainant was sent to the Hospital for treatment. The investigation was conducted and upon completion of investigation, the accused persons were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences. The case was committed to the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class but as the powers are vested with the learned Sessions Court, the same was transferred to the learned Sessions Judge where it was registered as Special Criminal Case No.44 of 2006. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. Therefore, the prosecution led evidence and on conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge passed the above judgment and order of acquittal. 5. At the time of the trial, the prosecution examined the following witnesses :- Particulars Exhibit PW-1 Nagabhai Khodabhai Makwana (complainant) 14 PW-2 Suresh Ravjibhai 16 PW-3 Rishit Rameshbhai Manvar 17 PW-4 Manisbhai Ravjibhai Khant 18 PW-5 Rajesh Ramjibhai 19 PW-6 Hiteshbhai Dahyalal 22 PW-7 Sanjay Jayantilal 23 PW-8 Aminbhai Ajijbhai Kotadiya (Medical Officer) 24 PW-9 Anantrai Nathalal Talsania 32 PW-10 Kanaksinh Gulabsinh Jadeja 33 PW-11 Nisargbhai Vasantbhai Patel (PSI and Investigating Officer) 34 PW-12 Panch Witness Chandubhai Arjanbhai 37 PW-13 Panch Witness Nalin Keshavji Nagar 39 PW-14 Jayantibhai Becharbhai Vasava (Dy. Superintendent of Police and Investigating Officer) 42 The prosecution also relied upon various documentary evidences, some of them are :- Particulars Exhibit Injury Certificate of the injured 27 Proof of the complainant being on duty 30 Photocopy of the Station Diary (Page No.31) 35 Report Form as per the Indian Motor Vehicle Act to collect fines 36 Panchnama of the scene 38 Panchnama of arrest of the accused – Bhikha Karsan 40 Panchnama of arrest of the accused – Deviya Jesa 41 Certificate given by the Mamlatdar, Jam Jodhpur regarding the caste of the complainant 46 Certificate given by the Mamlatdar, Jam Jodhpur regarding the caste of the accused– Deviya Jesa 47 Special Report regarding the Atrocity Case 51 6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Dhawan Jayswal has submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the version of the complainant PW1 – Nagabhai Ghodabhai Makwana who has been examined at Exhibit 14, and had deposed about the facts as stated hereinabove. The complainant has also deposed about the kick and fist blows, about the people gathering, the respondents running away from the spot and lodging of the FIR. The witness has identified the complaint which was produced at Exhibit 15, as also his signature below the complaint. It is further submitted that the cause of incident had occurred due to checking of buses which were illegally transporting the passengers, run by the respondents and with a view to take revenge, intercepted the complainant, gave foul abuses and also gave kick and fist blows. This witness has further deposed that the witness was sent to Government Hospital where treatment was given and on the next day, Dy. S.P., Jamkhambalia had recorded his statement. This witness has also identified the accused before the Court. It is also submitted that the learned Judge has discarded the evidence of the complainant by believing that no such facts of beating and giving foul abuses have been emerging from his deposition which would corroborate with the complaint which was produced by Exhibit 15. During the cross examination, nothing adverse could have been elicited however, the learned Judge did not believe the evidence of this witness. 7. During the cross examination, nothing adverse could have been elicited however, the learned Judge did not believe the evidence of this witness. 7. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the version of PW-8 Aminbhai Kotadia who has deposed in his testimony that on 13.09.2006, he was discharging his duty as Medical Officer at Public Health Centre, Jamjodhpur and at that time, the complainant, being offence registered in Crime Register No.I-36 of 2006, came with a yadi alongwith a Police Constable. The yadi was brought by him and was produced at Exhibit 25. Upon asking the complainant, he stated the history of the incident wherein one was accused No.1. The MLC case papers were produced by this witness, which was taken. The patient was examined and certificate was issued which was produced at Exhibit 27, based on which, it was stated that blunt injuries were found on the body of the injured and there were no complications, the patient would be well within 4-5 days. However, the learned Judge discarded this witness only on the ground that the complainant had not stated any history of the incident. 8. It is further submitted that in the present case, the witnesses who were examined were also working or doing business in the area where the incident had taken place and had turned hostile, but on that count, the whole prosecution case cannot be doubted. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have appreciated the version of PW-9 Anantray Nathalal Talsania, the Depo Manager at Jamjodhpur, S.T. Depo who has been examined at Exhibit 32, wherein he has deposed in his testimony that the complainant was serving as ATS. On the day of the incident, he received a call on his mobile that when the complainant was going outside the station, he was being beaten. It is further deposited that the witness alongwith the staff members had carried out the checking. Upon receiving message from the traffic controller, he rushed to the S.T. Depo and tried to gather information and also came to knew that the complainant had gone to the Police Station and also that the respondents had beaten the complainant and hence, the FIR was lodged with the police station. Upon receiving message from the traffic controller, he rushed to the S.T. Depo and tried to gather information and also came to knew that the complainant had gone to the Police Station and also that the respondents had beaten the complainant and hence, the FIR was lodged with the police station. It is further submitted that the name of the accused was given and that the police had recorded his statement and therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be said to have been doubtful. 9. It is further submitted that PW-10 Kanaksinh Gulabsinh ATI has been examined at Exhibit 33 and has narrated in detail that on 13.09.2006 at about 10.00 clock, the police had lodged the offence for illegal transportation of passengers and checking was carried out by this witness alongwith the complainant and the Depot Manager and during the said checking, one mini bus and one rickshaw was detained. It is further stated by this witness that after completing his duty, the witness went home and on the next day, he came to know from the complainant about the filthy abuses and kick and fist blows given to the complainant. 10. It is also submitted that the learned Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of PW-11, Nisargbhai Vasantbhai Patel who was examined at Exhibit 34 and who deposed that he was the Incharge P.S.I. and at that time, the complainant lodged a FIR, he registered the same and made an entry in the station diary. The complainant was identified by this witness, the entry in the station diary was also identified at Exhibit 35 and the yadi produced at Exhibit 25 written by him to the Medical Officer, Jamjodhpur is also identified by this witness, however, the learned Judge has disbelieved the evidence of this witness. 11. The learned Judge has also not believed the evidence of PW-14 Jayantibhai Becharbhai Vasava, Deputy Police Officer, Khambhalia Division, who was examined at Exhibit 14. In his deposition, this witness had stated that he was discharging his duty as Deputy Police Officer, Khambalia Division. On 14.09.2006, he was entrusted the investigation of offence registered at Jamjodhpur Police Station. The investigation of the offence was conducted. Letters produced at Exhibits 43 and 44 were identified by this witness. In his deposition, this witness had stated that he was discharging his duty as Deputy Police Officer, Khambalia Division. On 14.09.2006, he was entrusted the investigation of offence registered at Jamjodhpur Police Station. The investigation of the offence was conducted. Letters produced at Exhibits 43 and 44 were identified by this witness. The Panchnama of the scene of offence was drawn by this witness in the presence of the panch witness, which is duly produced at Exhibit 38. Exhibits 40 and 41 were also drawn by him in the presence of the panch witnesses. A yadi for caste certificate was written which is duly produced at Exhibit 45. A Caste Certificate issued by the Mamlatdar, Jamjodhpur was produced at Exhibit 46 which shows the caste of the complainant. The statement of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was arrested. As sufficient evidence to connect the accused with the crime was found, the charge-sheet came to be filed. Considering the above, it is submitted that this is a fit case which requires interference of this Court and the judgment and order of the learned Judge be upturned. 12. Learned Advocate Mr. Neeraj Soni, who has been appointed as Amicus to this Court has relied on the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are detailed hereinbelow. Reliance has been placed on the cross examination of the complainant at Exhibits 39, 45, 53 and 57 based on which it is submitted that from the aforesaid, it emerges that the complainant does not appear to be a regular employee of the S.T. Corporation. It is further submitted that the complainant failed to place evidence on record to prove that the complainant was an employee of the S.T. Corporation. Further at the time of filing the complaint on 13.09.2006, the same was filed without naming the accused. Reliance was also placed on the cross examination which states that at the time of the incident, a number of people had gathered at the relevant point of time. In addition, no independent witnesses have been examined. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge requires no interference by this Court. 13. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. In addition, no independent witnesses have been examined. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge requires no interference by this Court. 13. In the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani Vs. State of Kerala & Anr, reported in (2006) 6 S.C.C. 39 , the Apex Court has narrated about the powers of the High Court in appeal against the order of acquittal. In para 54 of the decision, the Apex Court has observed as under :- “54. In any event the High Court entertained an appeal treating to be an appeal against acquittal, it was in fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction. Even while exercising an appellate power against a judgment of acquittal, the High Court should have borne in mind the well-settled principles of law that where two view are possible, the appellate Court should not interfere with the finding of acquittal recorded by the Court below.” 14. Further, in the case of Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 S.C.C. 415 , the Apex Court had laid down the following principles : “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge : [1] An appellate Court has full power to review, re- appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. [2] The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. [3] Various expressions, such as, substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes, etc. are not intended to curtain extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of flourishes of language to emphasis the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. [4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. [4] An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. [5] If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court.” 15. Thus, it is a settled principle that while exercising appellate power, even if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. 16. Even in the case of State of Goa V. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. reported in (2007) 3 S.C.C. 75, the Apex Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision, the Court has observed as under :- “16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re- appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.” 17. A duty is cast upon the appellate Court, in such circumstances, to re- appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.” 17. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ram Veer Singh & Ors reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs Vs. State of MP reported in 2007 A.I.R. S.C.W. 5589. Thus, the powers, which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal, are well settled. 18. In the case of Luna Ram Vs. Bhupat Singh and Ors, reported in (2009) SCC 749, the Apex Court in para 10 and 11 has held as under :- “10. The High Court has noted that the prosecution version was not clearly believable. Some of the so- called eye witnesses stated that the deceased died because his ankle was twisted by an accused. Others said that he was strangulated. It was the case of the prosecution that the injured witnesses were thrown out of the bus. The doctor who conducted the post-mortem and examined the witnesses had categorically stated that it was not possible that somebody would throw a person out of the bus when it was in running condition. 11. Considering the parameters of appeal against the judgment of acquittal, we are not inclined to interfere in this appeal. The view of the High Court cannot be termed to be perverse and is a possible view on the evidence.” 19. Even in a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Mookkiah and Anr. Vs. State, rep. by the Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR 2013 SCC 321 , the Apex Court in para 4 has held as under:- “4. It is not in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. On appeal by the State, the High Court, by impugned order, reversed the said decision and convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded RI for life. Since counsel for the appellant very much emphasized that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in upsetting the order of acquittal into conviction, let us analyze the scope and power of the High Court in an appeal filed against the order of acquittal. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly laid down that as the first appellate court the High Court, even while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, was also entitled, and obliged as well, to scan through and if need be re-appreciate the entire evidence, though while choosing to interfere only the court should find an absolute assurance of the guilt on the basis of the evidence on record and not merely because the High Court could take one more possible or a different view only. Except the above, where the matter of the extent and depth of consideration of the appeal is concerned, no distinctions or differences in approach are envisaged in dealing with an appeal as such merely because one was against conviction or the other against an acquittal. [Vide State of Rajasthan vs. Sohan Lal and Others, (2004) 5 SCC 573 ].” 20. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate Court is not required to re-write the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 , wherein it is held as under :- “This Court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Choudhary (1967) 1 SCR 93 :( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) that it is not the duty of the Appellate Court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial Court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.” 21. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivasharanappa and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2013(7) SC 66. 22. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shivasharanappa and Ors Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in JT 2013(7) SC 66. 22. At this stage, this Court would like to refer to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court :- a) Mariano Anto Bruno v. Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2022 SC (Criminal) 1454 ; b) P.I. Babu v. C.B.I. reported in AIRONLINE 2024 SC 181; c) Mohd. Abaad Ali v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence reported in AIR 2024 SC 1271 . 23. This Court also relies on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mallappa and Others v. State of Karnataka reported in AIRONLINE 2024 SC 80 wherein it was held in Paragraph 36 as under :- “36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which comes into play while deciding an Appeal from acquittal could be summarized as : (i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary; (ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge; (iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed; (iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal; (v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts; (vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.” 24. In the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :- “8. In the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :- “8. Against the backdrop of these facts, it is pertinent to refer to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of enactment of the Act. It is provided as under :- “Statement of Objects and Reasons. - Despite various measures to improve the socio- economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, they remain vulnerable. They are denied number of civil rights. They are subjected to various offences, indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have, in several brutal incidents, been deprived of their life and property. Serious crimes are committed against them for various historical, social and economic reasons. 2. Because of the awareness created amongst the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes through spread of education, etc., they are trying to assert their rights and this is not being taken very kindly by the others. When they assert their rights and resist practices of untouchability against them or demand statutory minimum wages or refuse to do any bonded and forced labour, the vested interests try to cow them down and terrorise them. When the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes try to preserve their self-respect or honour of their women, they become irritants for the dominant and the mighty. Occupation and cultivation of even the Government allotted land by the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes is resented and more often these people become victims of attacks by the vested interests. Of late, there has been an increase in the disturbing trend of commission of certain atrocities like making the Scheduled Caste persons eat inedible substances like human excreta and attacks on and mass killings of helpless Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes and rape of women belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary.” 9. Under the circumstances, the existing laws like the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal provisions of the Indian Penal Code have been found to be inadequate to check these crimes. A special Legislation to check and deter crimes against them committed by non-Scheduled Castes and non-Scheduled Tribes has, therefore, become necessary.” 9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. 10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community. 11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under : “3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;” 12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”. 13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. 14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors., (2008) 8 SCC 435 . The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under : “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. The Court held as under : “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” 25. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties and perused the records of the case, At Exhibit 30 regarding the presence of the panchas. In the cross, it is stated that the complaint is filed against two persons and the name of the second person is not named in the complaint. The Doctor has deposed about the Injury Certificate, however, it has been added at a later point of time. There is no visible wound and the question of explaining the wound would not arise. On perusal of the deposition of the Depot Manager, he deposed that if the vehicles are found in illegal transportation of passengers, then a complaint has to be registered. While passing the above judgment and award, the learned Judge has considered the evidence on record, the deposition of witnesses and the question also arises as to whether the complainant had suffered any injury or not? While passing the above judgment and award, the learned Judge has considered the evidence on record, the deposition of witnesses and the question also arises as to whether the complainant had suffered any injury or not? Perusing the entire record also reveals that there are no utterances against the complainant by the accused to consider the case as falling under the Atrocities Act. 26. Hence, this Court is in full agreement with the reasons given and findings recorded by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused and adopting the said reasons as well as the reasons aforesaid, in my view, the impugned Judgment is just, legal and proper and requires no interference by this Court. 27. The Appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.04.2007 of the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Khambalia, in Special Criminal Case No.44 of 2006 stands confirmed. Bail and bail bond, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings, be sent to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.