Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 2198 (GUJ)

State Of Gujarat v. Narubhai Valsinh

2024-12-12

HEMANT M.PRACHCHHAK

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity) and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No.7, Gondal Camp at Dhoraji (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 85 of 2005 whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 337, 504, 506(2) etc of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Atrocity Act”) whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged offence. 2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:- 2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 11.01.2004 at about 1.30 p.m., the complainant and one Ranjitbhai Muljibhai were collecting the sand royalty as they were having a lease for excavating the sand from Fofal River, situated in the sim of Village: Rangpar, at that time, the accused came there and told the complainant that why they were collecting the royalty. It is the case of the prosecution that there was hot altercation had taken place and the accused used filthy language and also insulted by their case with an intend to humiliate to the complainant and in that altercation, accused has pelted stone on the complainant and on account of the same, complainant sustained injury on the forehead and he was in bleeding condition and, thereafter he was taken to Jamkandorna Hospital by P.W.3 Bharatbhai Muljibhai where he had taken the treatment and therefore the complainant had lodged the complaint before the concerned police station being C.R.No.I-3 of 2004. 2.2 On the basis of the said incident, the FIR came to be lodged for the aforesaid offences against the accused. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses, prepared the panchnama of the scene of offence and collected necessary evidence against the accused. 2.3 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses, prepared the panchnama of the scene of offence and collected necessary evidence against the accused. 2.3 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions wherein it has been registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 85 of 2005. 2.4 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 28.12.2006 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to him, the accused denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court. 2.5 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses and also produced the documentary evidence. 2.6 After closure of the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against him. 3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal. 4. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat at length. It is relevant to note that as per the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the original complainant had joined as party respondent and issued notice to him. It appears from the record that the original complainant was expired and the death certificate of the complainant is on record with affidavit of service by police constable who had served the notice upon the complainant and so far as the original accused is concerned, though served, the accused has chosen not to appear before the Court and hence, the appeal is decided in absence of the accused. 5. 5. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat, while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper perspective. She has submitted that the trial Court ought to have believed that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the accused. While referring to the evidence of the witnesses and the material collected against the accused, Ms. Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the prosecution has established the case against the accused by examining the witnesses who have supported the case of the prosecution, however, the trial Court has discarded and disbelieved the evidence of the witnesses and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption. She has submitted that the accused has intended to insult the complainant by using the words as mentioned in Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act and prosecution has produced documentary evidence to prove the case with regard to the fact that the accused has made assault and caused injury to the complainant. She has submitted that the complainant has sustained the injury on his forehead and he was in bleeding condition and he was taken to the Jamkandorna Hospital where he was treated and hence, this fact is proved by the prosecution from the evidence of the complainant and other witnesses, however, the trial Court has not considered the said fact in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Mr.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that so far as the allegation with regard to administering the threat to the complainant is concerned, the same was proved by the evidence of P.W.2 and, therefore, the trial Court ought to have appreciated the evidence of the concerned witnesses who have deposed before the trial Court and supported the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt, however, the trial Court has not considered the evidence of the concerned witnesses in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act with regard to the abusive language used by the accused. Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred to Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act with regard to the abusive language used by the accused. The said Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act reads as under:- “Section3(1)(x) corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used” 5.1 Ms.Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is evidence come on record through the injured witness and eye witness, however, the trial Court has not considered the same in its proper perspective. She has submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is based on conjuncture and surmises and there is no any cogent and valid reason assigned by the trial Court. 5.2 According to her submission, the trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and ought to have imposed necessary sentence. She has prayed to allow the present appeal and to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 6. This Court has perused the judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the trial Court and carefully considered the rival contentions, evidence and material placed on record. 7. After examining the evidence on record including the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution and finding recorded by the trial Court, this Court is of the considered that the undisputed fact is required to be noted. On 11.01.2004, the complainant lodged the complaint against the accused for the aforesaid offences. It is stated in the complaint that accused has looted Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of the complainant, but ultimately, the complainant in his evidence has admitted that at the time of registration of the complaint, he has stated false fact and subsequently, thereafter, he found the said amount in his pocket as it was not looted. It is stated in the complaint that accused has looted Rs.1,000/- from the pocket of the complainant, but ultimately, the complainant in his evidence has admitted that at the time of registration of the complaint, he has stated false fact and subsequently, thereafter, he found the said amount in his pocket as it was not looted. It is also an undisputed fact that the injured person sustained injury by pelting stone and he stated that the incident took place before two and half hours and during that period P.W.2 Ranjitbhai Muljibhai was not present and he had admitted in his evidence that he was reached subsequently and he was not aware what words used by the accused towards the complainant and by which weapon he sustained injury and in his presence no incident had taken place. P.W.2 has also stated that he has no personal knowledge about the incident, but it was informed by the complainant himself and, therefore, on hearsay he has narrated the incident and injury sustained by the complainant. It is also to be noted herein that the incident took place at the site of Fofal River situated at Village: Rangpar and the distance of Village: Rangpar to Jamkandorna is 27 to 28 kilometers and there was no evidence on record to that effect and while taking the injured to the hospital at a long distance of 32 – 34 kilo meters, whether he was given primary treatment or not or whether on the way of Jamkandorna he was treated or he was in bleeding condition and if he was in bleeding condition then naturally some blood was found on the cloth of the injured, however, this aspect was not stated either by the complainant or P.W.3 – Bharatbhai and even that fact was not stated before the doctor also. It appears that the prosecution has not been examined by the prosecution, who has given primary treatment at Jamkandorna and merely certificate issued by the hospital is on record and in absence of author of the certificate or treating doctor, it creates doubt. It appears that the prosecution has not been examined by the prosecution, who has given primary treatment at Jamkandorna and merely certificate issued by the hospital is on record and in absence of author of the certificate or treating doctor, it creates doubt. So far as the allegation for the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act is concerned, there is no whisper about the say of two witnesses except the complainant, who has stated the fact before the Court that how and in what manner, he was insulted with an intend to humiliate by accused and thereby offence under Section 3(1)(x) was committed. Under the circumstances, the trial Court has discussed the evidence and reasoning about the alleged offence. So far as the injury sustained by the complainant is concerned, the complainant has not given any history to the doctor with regard to injury sustained on account of pelting stone by the accused. It is required to be noted that the distance from Village: Rangpar to Jamkandorna is 25 kilo meters and for this 25 kilo meters whether the injured took any primary treatment or not and till reaching to the hospital at Jamkandorna, definitely bleeding was continued then his cloth was found with blood stain, but the prosecution has not collected the cloth of the injured and even nothing was mentioned with regard to blood stain at the place of incident. All these facts suggest that the fact about the incident narrated by the complainant is not possible and the story put forward by the prosecution is absolutely unbelievable. Though P.W.2 Ranjitbhai Muljibhai posed to be an eye witness, but he himself has admitted that he has no personal knowledge with regard to the incident and he reached subsequently after the incident, meaning thereby he has not seen the incident, however, he himself posed as an eye witness of the incident in question. P.W.3 - Bharatbhai, who is lease holder and contractor for excavating the sand from the Fofal River, has also stated different story. P.W.2 - Ranjitbhai has stated that he made telephone call and on receipt of the same, P.W.3 - Bharatbhai reached at the place and taken the injured to the hospital which statement was completely contradictory by the verision of P.W.3 and P.W.1. P.W.2 - Ranjitbhai has stated that he made telephone call and on receipt of the same, P.W.3 - Bharatbhai reached at the place and taken the injured to the hospital which statement was completely contradictory by the verision of P.W.3 and P.W.1. So how P.W.3 - Bharatbhai reached at the spot was not confirmed because there was two different stories by the complainant and so called eye witness. Under the circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the fact that how Bharatbhai reached at the spot. So far as the allegations qua loot / snatching away Rs.1,000/- from the pocket was complainant is concerned, the complainant has admitted that at the time of registration of the FIR, he has stated that he was found Rs.1,000/- in his pocket. Therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution was rightly disbelieved by the trial Court and after examining oral as well as documentary evidence and going through the evidence of the witnesses, the trial Court has right passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and perusing the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, it transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of facts and law in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 8. It is well settled by catena of decisions that the an Appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. However, Appellate Court 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. 9. Further, 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. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court. 9. Further, 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. Further, 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 the accused are connected with the commission of the crime with which he is charged. 10. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraph Nos. 42 and 43, which was subsequently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, reported in [2022] 3 SCC 471, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph No. 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 11. Then in case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, reported in AIR 2024 SC 2252 = (2024) 8 SCC 149 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the similar issue, more particularly, in paragraph Nos. 37 to 40. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the trial Court. 11. It is also worthwhile to refer to the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramesh vs. State of Karnataka, reported in [2024] 9 SCC 169, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in paras-20 and 21 as under:- “20. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the general principles culled out by this Court in Chandrappa and others vs. State of Karnataka , regarding the power of the appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against a judgment of acquittal. The principles read thus: “42. …. (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate 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 curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasize 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. 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. 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. 21. In Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court pointed out that it would be essential for the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, to clearly indicate firm and weighty grounds from the record for discarding the reasons of the Trial Court in order to be able to reach a contrary conclusion of guilt of the accused. It was further observed that, in an appeal against acquittal, it would not be legally sufficient for the High Court to take a contrary view about the credibility of witnesses and it is absolutely imperative that the High Court convincingly finds it well-nigh impossible for the Trial Court to reject their testimony. This was identified as the quintessence of the jurisprudential aspect of criminal justice. Viewed in this light, the brusque approach of the High Court in dealing with the appeal, resulting in the conviction of Appellant Nos. 1 and 2, reversing the cogent and well-considered judgment of acquittal by the Trial Court giving them the benefit of doubt, cannot be sustained.” 12. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shajan Skaria Vs. State of Kerala reported in AIR 2024 SC 4557 for the purpose of considering the provision of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. The relevant paragraph of this decision are as under:- “56. It is relevant to note that Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is similarly worded as the erstwhile Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 which was in force prior to its substitution with effect from 26.01.2016. 58. The relevant paragraph of this decision are as under:- “56. It is relevant to note that Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is similarly worded as the erstwhile Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 which was in force prior to its substitution with effect from 26.01.2016. 58. We say so for the reason that all insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. There is nothing in the transcript of the uploaded video to indicate even prime facie that those allegations were made by the appellant only on account of the fact that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. From the nature of the allegations made by the appellant, it appears that he is at inimical terms with the complainant. His intention may be to malign or defame him but not on the ground or for the reason that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. 59. In the aforesaid context, we may refer to and rely upon a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Hitesh Verma (supra). The relevant observations are reproduced below: “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. 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. 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 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 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste. xxx xxx xxx 17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104], this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: “15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar” Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.” 18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.” (Emphasis supplied) 60. Thus, the dictum as laid aforesaid is that the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is not established merely on the fact that the complainant is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, unless there is an intention to humiliate such a member for the reason that he belongs to such community. In other words, it is not the purport of the Act, 1989 that every act of intentional insult or intimidation meted by a person who is not a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe to a person who belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would attract Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 merely because it is committed against a person who happens to be a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. On the contrary, Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 is attracted where the reason for the intentional insult or intimidation is that the person who is subjected to it belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. We say so because the object behind the enactment of the Act, 1989 was to provide stringent provisions for punishment of offences which are targeted towards persons belonging to the SC/ST communities for the reason of their caste status. a. Meaning of the expression “intent to humiliate” appearing in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 61. The words “with intent to humiliate” as they appear in the text of Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 are inextricably linked to the caste identity of the person who is subjected to intentional insult or intimidation. Not every intentional insult or intimidation of a member of a SC/ST community will result into a feeling of caste-based humiliation. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the “upper castes” over the “lower castes/untouchables”, the notions of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’, etc. It is only in those cases where the intentional insult or intimidation takes place either due to the prevailing practice of untouchability or to reinforce the historically entrenched ideas like the superiority of the “upper castes” over the “lower castes/untouchables”, the notions of ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’, etc. that it could be said to be an insult or intimidation of the type envisaged by the Act, 1989. 62. We would like to refer to the observations of this Court in Ram Krishna Balothia (supra) to further elaborate upon the idea of “humiliation” as it has been used under the Act, 1989. It was observed in the said case that the offences enumerated under the Act, 1989 belong to a separate category as they arise from the practice of ‘untouchability’ and thus the Parliament was competent to enact special laws treating such offences and offenders as belonging to a separate category. Referring to the Statements of Objects and Purposes of the Act, 1989 it was observed by this Court that the object behind the introduction of the Act, 1989 was to afford statutory protection to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, who were terrorised and subjected to humiliation and indignations upon assertion of their civil rights and resistance to the practice of untouchability. For this reason, mere fact that the person subjected to insult or intimidation belongs to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe would not attract the offence under Section 3(1)(r) unless it was the intention of the accused to subject the concerned person to castebased humiliation. 70. In our considered view, it is in a similar vein that the term ‘humiliation’ as it appears in Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989 must be construed, that is, in a way that it deprecates the infliction of humiliation against members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes wherein such humiliation is intricately associated with the caste identity of such members. 73. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya (supra) explained that for an act of intentional insult to attract the offence under erstwhile section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 (which is identical to Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989) it was necessary that the insult is laced with casteist remarks. Relevant observations is extracted hereinbelow: “18. 73. A two-Judge Bench of this Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya (supra) explained that for an act of intentional insult to attract the offence under erstwhile section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 (which is identical to Section 3(1)(r) of the Act, 1989) it was necessary that the insult is laced with casteist remarks. Relevant observations is extracted hereinbelow: “18. […] The legislative intent seems to be clear that every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to an offence under section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act unless, of course, such insult or intimidation is targeted at the victim because of he being a member of a particular Scheduled Caste or Tribe. If one calls another an idiot (bewaqoof) or a fool (murkh) or a thief (chor) in any place within public view, this would obviously constitute an act intended to insult or humiliate by user of abusive or offensive language. Even if the same be directed generally to a person, who happens to be a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, per se, it may not be sufficient to attract Section 3(1)(x) unless such words are laced with casteist remarks. […]” 13. Considering the entire evidence on record, it clearly appears that there is 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 has committed the alleged crime. Therefore, the accused cannot be convicted on the evidence on record. 14. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it clearly transpires that the trial Court has not committed any error of fact and law in appreciating the evidence on record and in acquitting the accused from the charges levelled against him. Even on reappreciation of the evidence, it clearly transpires that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court is sustainable and the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In view of the above, the present appeal is devoid of merits and it deserves to be dismissed. Resultantly, it is dismissed. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.