..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.19 OF 2008 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Sau.Bebi Gopal Jadhav and 4 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.Raj J.Khude, Adv. for the Respondents. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 19th June, 2008. DATED : 19th June, 2008. DATED : 19th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th August, 2007 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Special Sessions Case No.12 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-orig. accused Nos.1 to 5 of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) & 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, under Section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and under ..(2).. Sections 323, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. The case of the complainant is that all the accused persons insulted her by referring to her caste. Her further case is that all the accused persons assaulted her and threatened her. The case of the complainant is that the incident took place on 23rd January, 2006. However, there is almost 10 days delay in lodging the FIR. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. This delay itself raises serious doubt in the mind regarding the prosecution case. 4. In addition to the above, it is seen that in the evidence of the complainant there is no reference to caste of the accused. It is noticed that the complainant has not stated anywhere that the accused persons do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Their caste ..(3).. certificates have also not been produced by the prosecution. Thus, the caste of the accused person has not been brought on record. It is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the caste of not only the complainant but also of the accused. Useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ashabala Ashabala Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36, wherein this Court has held that Section 3 of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, contemplates that the prosecution must establish that accused was not member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and the person aggrieved was the member of scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. This is the important ingredient to establish offence under Section 3 of the Act. There must be specific evidence with respect to both these aspects. In para-8 of the said Judgement, this Court observed that the prosecution ought to have brought on record the caste certificate of both the parties to prove their allegations. 5. In the present case, the complainant in her FIR has also not stated the caste of the accused ..(4).. persons. To attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Act, the complaint has not only to reveal the caste of the person who is sought to be insulted or intimidated or humiliated but he should also disclose that such person belongs to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and simultaneously the complaint should also reveal that the person who is accused of commission of such offence does not belong either to a Scheduled caste or to a Scheduled Tribe. It is only when the accusation with an intention to insult or intimidate or to humiliate has been made by a person not belonging either to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and addressed to the person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe, only in that case, he could be said to have committed an offence under section 3(1)(x) or 3(1)(xi) of the said Act and not otherwise. Obviously, therefore, if the complaint does not disclose that the accused person do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, it would not disclose an offence in terms of the said sections. 6. In the present case, the complaint is totally silent about the caste of the accused ..(5).. persons. So also in her evidence, the complainant has not stated the caste of the accused persons. As stated earlier the caste of the accused persons has not been brought on record by the prosecution. In the absence of essential facts in the evidence of the witnesses especially the evidence of the complainant, it cannot be said that any case is made out under the SC & ST Act or even the Protection of Civil Rights Act. 7. As stated earlier, in the present case there is delay of ten days in lodging the complaint and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Looking to all these facts, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 to 5. 8. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)