(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.1556 OF 2006. The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. Versus Versus Versus Gorakh Tukaram Chavan & Anr. .. Respondents. .... Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP for Applicant. Mr. S.D. Patil, Adv.for Respondents. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. DATED : 26th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant - State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 6th December 2005, passed by the IIIrd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No.271/2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted respondents-original accused no.1 & 2, of the offence under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. (2) 2. The prosecution case is that the complainant PW.1- Vilas was a Cobbler by caste. He had taken loan from the credit society and respondents-original accused nos.1 & 2 were the office bearers of the said society. As there was a default on the part of the complainant in repaying the loan, the accused persons abused him with reference to his caste. Hence, the complaint came to be filed. 3. I have heard the learned APP for applicant-State and the learned Advocate for the respondents. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence produced by the learned APP. 4. It is seen that there is 22 days delay in lodging the F.I.R. From the evidence, it is seen that the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The delay of 22 days in lodging the F.I.R., itself, raises grave doubt in the mind regarding the veracity of the complainant. Moreover, it is seen that the complainant in his (3) complaint as well as in his evidence before the court has not stated about the caste of both the accused persons. In fact, in his examination-in-chief, the complainant has stated that he does not know the caste of both the accused. 5. The complainant is totally silent about the caste of the accused. 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 & Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Ashabala Ganeshrao Khote & Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in Anr. v/s. State of Maharashtra, reported in 1992(2) Mh.L.J. 36, 1992(2) Mh.L.J. 36, 1992(2) Mh.L.J. 36, wherein this Court has held that Section 3 of the 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 (4) aspects. In para 8 of the said judgment, this Court observed that the prosecution ought to have brought on record the caste certificate of both the parties to prove their allegations. Moreover, in the present case there is delay of 22 days in lodging the F.I.R. and the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. 6. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that no case is made out, the application to leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)