[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1385 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Anant Laxman Pawar and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for Applicant-State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 04, 2008 DATE : JUNE 04, 2008 DATE : JUNE 04, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.12.2006 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Special Case No.2 of 2003. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondents-original accused nos.1 to 3 of the offences under Section 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act and of the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the SC ST Act). [-2-] 2. The prosecution case is that on 7.5.2002 the complainant Rajesh went to the house of one Sitaram Chavan to attend the function. While taking meals, Respondent No.1 Anant Pawar came there and asked "who served food to these Mahar people". Thereafter on 12.9.2002 all the accused persons assaulted one Deepali Chavan and her family members and uttered that she and her family members were keeping company with the members of the Scheduled Caste and thus caused annoyance to them on the ground of untouchability. Lastly on 5.12.2002 the accused persons told witness Tukaram Rahate whether he was spying for the people from Mahar caste and caused insult to him on the ground of untouchability. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. As per the prosecution case, the incidents had taken place on 7.5.2002, 12.9.2002 and 5.12.2002. The complaint in respect of the above three incidents came to be lodged on 16.4.2003. A common [-3-] complaint came to be lodged in respect of all the three incidents. It may be stated here that the complainant is not concerned with the incidents relating to 12.9.2002 and 5.12.2002 and only Deepali and her family members were concerned with the incident dated 12.9.2002 and Tukaram Rahate is concerned with the incident relating to 7.5.2002. The complaint is dated 16.4.2003. In the present case, it is seen that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. No plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the FIR. This inordinate delay itself raises serious doubt in the mind regarding the prosecution case. 5. To attract the provisions of SC ST Act, the offender must not be a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, whereas the person offended has necessarily to be a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Tukaram Rahate who has been examined by the prosecution has stated that he belongs to Hindu Maratha caste. Thus obviously he does not belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Moreover, at the time when the incident occurred, no member of the Scheduled Caste [-4-] or Scheduled Tribe was anywhere near the site of occurrence. As far as the incident relating to witness Deepali is concerned, neither Deepali nor her family members have been examined. Complainant Rajesh who speaks about the incident, does not even claim to be present at the time when the incident occurred. Moreover, neither Deepali nor her family members belong to any Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe nor was any person who belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe was present nearby when such words were uttered to Deepali. Thus, as neither Tukaram Rahate nor Deepali nor Prerana belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and therefore, the provisions of the SC ST Act would not be attracted. 6. As far as complainant himself is concerned, he has admitted that he converted to Buddhism on 14.10.1956. Thus, on none of the dates on which he alleges the incidents had occurred, he belonged to Hindu Mahar caste as has been stated by him. In the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Parbatrao @ State of Maharashtra Vs. Parbatrao @ State of Maharashtra Vs. Parbatrao @ Prabhakar Govindrao Bhote and others [1992 (2) Mah. Prabhakar Govindrao Bhote and others [1992 (2) Mah. Prabhakar Govindrao Bhote and others [1992 (2) Mah. Law Reporter Page 596], Law Reporter Page 596], Law Reporter Page 596], it has been held by this Court that if the complainant belongs to Bouddha [-5-] community on the date of occurrence, provisions of Section 7 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act are not attracted. Similarly on the same analogy, provisions of SC ST Act would not be attracted. Taking all these facts into consideration, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the Respondents-accused. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, 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.]