((-1-)) MST IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.460 OF 2003 The State of Maharashtra Appellant versus Krushnath Maruti Patil Respondent Rajesh More, APP for appellant. CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. DATE : 1st April 2008 PC : 1. Heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. I find no reason to depart from the opinion recorded by the Lower Court that it was imperative for the prosecution to establish the fact that the accused was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe which is one of the ingredient of the offence under section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The Lower Court has rightly relied on the decision of Ashabai Ganeshrao Khote and another Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1999(2)-Mh.L.J.-36 to buttress this legal position. In other words, no fault can be found with the opinion recorded by the Lower Court for acquitting the ((-2-)) MST respondent-accused in respect of the offence under section 3 of the Act of 1989. 2. Insofar as offence punishable under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, even the said charge has been rightly answered against the prosecution relying on the decision in the case of Laxman Jayram Shant Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 1980-Mh.L.J.-833. Even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, there is nothing to suggest that the accused referred the caste of the complainant in breach or practice of untouchability, which alone would constitute an offence under the said provision. 3. Even with regard to the offences punishable under sections 394, 504, 323 and 506 of IPC, the same has been rightly answered against the prosecution having regard to the fact that independent eye witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution case. That view taken by the Lower Court is a possible view. 4. In the circumstances, no interference is warranted. Dismissed. ((-3-)) MST (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)