..(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.2905 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Gorakh Shambhau Shewale. ..Respondent. .... Mr.S.R.Borulkar, Public Prosecutor a/w. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.N.R.Bubna, Adv. for the Respondent. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 20th December, 2006 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge,3, Malegaon in S.C.No.11 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-orig. accused of the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Section 7(1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights ..(2).. Act, 1955 and Section 506 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State and the learned Counsel for the respondent. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that there was dispute between the complainant and the accused in respect of contract for cooking food at Zilla Parishad Primary School, Vadgaon. On account of the said dispute, when the complainant was cooking food in the kitchen of the School, the accused went there and uttered the words to the complainant, as shown below :- "Tu Dhed Aahe Maharin Aahe, Mee Tula Ithe Shijavu Denar Nahee" (in Marathi). 4. Firstly the incident has taken place in the kitchen which is not a public place. The place where the words uttered was not within public view. In the case of Shri. V.P. Shetty V/s. Shri. V.P. Shetty V/s. Shri. V.P. Shetty V/s. Sr. Inspector of Police & Anr. Sr. Inspector of Police & Anr. Sr. Inspector of Police & Anr. reported in 2005 2005 2005 ..(3).. ALL MR (Cri) 2384 ALL MR (Cri) 2384 ALL MR (Cri) 2384, it is held by this Court that if there are allegations of insult and humiliation against the accused regarding the acts in close cabin of the accused in absence of any stranger then it can hardly be said to be accusation by the accused to the complainant ‘within the public view’. 5. Moreover the caste of the accused person has not been brought on record. As far as caste of the complainant is concerned, it has not been brought on record that she belongs to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The name of the complainant is Hirabai Prakash Khare. However, she has produced one certificate in the name of Hirabai Prabhakar Jagtap. It is the case of the complainant that the said certificate was in her maiden name. However, it has not come anywhere on record that the maiden name of the complainant was Hirabai Prabhakar Jagtap. She has not stated so in her police statement nor any witness has been examined to show that Hirabai Prabhakar Jagtap and Hirabai Prakash Khare is the one and the same lady. Moreover, the certificate ..(4).. issued in respect of Hirabai Prabhakar Jagtap shows that her caste as "Nav-Bauddha". However, there is no reliable material to show that Hirabai Prabhakr Jagtap and the complainant is one and the same lady. It is incumbent on the part of the prosecution to prove the caste of not only the complainant and witnesses but also of the accused by producing their caste certificate. Useful reference can be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra 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 ..(5).. the parties to prove their allegations. Moreover, in the present case there is delay 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 accused. 6. 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.)