1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.620/2009 The State of Maharashtra Applicant Vs. Chandrakant A.Kone & Ors. Respondents Mr.P.A.Pol,APP for the applicant Coram: Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J. Date : 21st July,2009. P.C. . This application is preferred by the State of Maharashtra for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 15/10/2008 passed by I Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge,Solapur acquitting the accused. 2] The accused was charged and tried for the offences punishable under sections 3(1)(x),3(1)(xi)3(1)(ix) read with sec.6 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ,44(ii) ,7(1)(b)(d) ,x of the Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955,341,465 r/w section 34 ,471 r/w section 34 ,and 506 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . 3] The learned A.P.P. has submitted that there was a dispute in respect of seniority of the original complainant who belongs to scheduled caste i.e. Cobbler .The learned Trial Judge ought to have considered the evidence of P.W.5 2 who being an Administrative Officer in Education Board , Solapur is an independent witness who has admitted that she was entitled to become Head Mistress of the school. It is further submitted that the learned Trial Judge has erred in appreciating the evidence of P.W.4, the original complainant that she was deliberately bypassed only on account of her caste and she has suffered humiliation at the hands of accused . 4] In the original complaint no utterance of caste is found. It is not the case of the original complainant that the accused have made reference to her caste to insult or injure her or there is any such incident or any reflection or expression leading to humiliation based on the caste. The evidence of the original complainant who is the star witness in the case does not attribute any caste bias to the accused. The mere perception of the complainant that she is being humiliated or harassed due to her caste is not sufficient to consider the offence under either Atrocities Act or Protection of Civil Rights Act. The trial Judge has rightly acquitted the accused from the charges under the relevant Acts and has also properly discussed the evidence in respect of the other offences under Indian Penal Code. 3 Thus, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by the learned Trial Judge. The application for leave to appeal stands rejected. (Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.).