..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.364 OF 2006 Smt.Rohini Madhukar Kadam. ..Applicant. Versus Smt.Sunayana Vilas Salunke and four others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.S.V.Kotval, Adv. i/b. Mr.S.R.More, Adv. for the Applicant. Ms.Pranali Kakade, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Ms.P.P.Shinde, APP, for the State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. DATED : 9th July, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicant-orig.complainant, the learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicant-orig.complainant has preferred this Revision against the judgment and order dated 9.5.2006 passed by the IIIrd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Palghar in Sessions Case No.245 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes ..(2).. (Prevention) of Atrocities Act. 3. As far as the offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention) of Atrocities Act, is concerned in the complaint it is not mentioned that the abuses were given within public view i.e. in presence of public. The complainant has only made general allegations that all the accused abused her by referring to her caste. Useful reference may be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Mukesh Kumar Saini Vs. State (Delhi Administration) Administration) Administration) reported in 2002 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 2002 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 2002 ALL MR (Cri) JOURNAL 41 41 41 In the said case, it was observed that there must be specific accusation alleged against each of the accused and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code cannot be pressed into service. Omnibus statement that all the accused persons uttered allegedly humiliating word may not be enough. 4. In the present case, moreover it is seen that the case of the accused is not stated in the complaint. 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 ..(3).. that the complainant has not stated anywhere that the accused persons do not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Their caste certificates have also not been produced by the prosecution. Thus, the caste of the accused persons 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 Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra State of Maharashtra, reported in 1992(2) Mh.L.J. 1992(2) Mh.L.J. 1992(2) Mh.L.J. page-36 page-36 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. ..(4).. 5. In the present case, the complainant in her FIR has also not stated the caste of the accused 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) 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. ..(5).. 6. In the present case, the complaint is totally silent about the caste of the accused 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. 7. Lastly the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that even though the offence under the SC & ST Act many not be said to be made out against the respondents, however, a case under Section 323 IPC is certainly made out against the respondents. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the medical certificate of the complainant Exh.23. I have perused the said medical certificate. The incident in the present case has taken place on 24.9.2004 at 8:30 p.m.. The complainant was examined on 26.9.2004 in the day time. The doctor has noticed three injuries on the body of the complainant. First ..(6).. one is infected I/W on left forearm, second is healing abrasion on right forearm and third is infected I/W on left ear lobe. 8. If the injuries were received on 24.9.2004 at 8:30 p.m., they could not have infected by 26.9.2004. It is also pertinent to note that there is delay in lodging the FIR. 9. Looking to all the above facts, I am of the opinion that no case is made out for interference. Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)