1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR JUDGMENT S.B.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.776/1998 ( State of Raj. Vs. Jug Raj Singh) DATE OF JUDGMENT :- 16th May 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.C.BHAGWATI Mr B.K. Sharma, Public Prosecutor, for the State. Mr Vijyant Nirvan for Mr A.K.Gupta, for the respondent. BY THE COURT This order governs an adjudication of criminal appeal directed against the judgment and order dated 13.3.1997 passed by the Special Judge, S.C./S.T., (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cases, Baran whereby the Special Judge has acquitted the accused- respondent Jug Raj Singh in the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the S.C./S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 324 of IPC. No appeal is found to have been filed by the accused respondent Jug Raj Singh against the order of conviction in the offence under Section 323 IPC. The occurrence of this case took place on 20.5.1996 in village Pachel Kalan and the accused was charged for the offence under 2 Section 3(i)(x) of the S.C./S.T., (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act, 1989) and under Section 323 and 324 IPC. The accused is alleged to have intentionally insulted the complainant Hemraj by hurling abuses and calling him by the name of caste `Minte' with an intent to humiliate him in public view. He is also alleged to have caused simple injuries on his head by a bottle. Heard the argument of Mr B.K. Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor for the State as also Shri Vijyant Nirvan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused -respondent and perused the impugned judgment of the lower Court along with relevant material available on record. Shri B.K Sharma, learned Public Prosecutor has assailed the judgment of the lower court basically on two grounds. He has contended that statements of PW/1 Hemraj, PW/2 Vidyaratan; and PW/6 Shishupal have not been properly appreciated by the lower court. It is well established from the statements of these witnesses that the accused Jug Raj Singh caused injury on the head of Hemraj by a bottle which squarely falls within the ambit of sharp object. The judgment of acquittal of the lower 3 court is both against the law and facts and as such deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused respondent has duly supported the impugned judgment of the trial Court and submitted that the State Appeal has no force and is liable to be dismissed. At the very outset, I would like to point out that to bring home an offence under Section 3(1)(x), the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. Sub-section (1) (x) of Section 3 of the Act, 1989 comprises two parts. Firstly, the prosecution has to prove that the accused intentionally insulted or intimidated a member of Scheduled Caste or Tribe; and secondly he wanted to intentionally insult with an intent to humiliate him in public view. A bare perusal of the statements of complainant PW/1 Hemraj reveals that the accused hurled abuses while he was passing in front of the house of the complainant. The statement of the complainant albeit corroborated by PW/2 Vidya Ratan but they being 4 from the same community are not worthy of credence. The prosecution has also not collected the evidence as to in whose presence and in what manner, the complainant was humiliated by the accused. Secondly, PW/2 Vidhyaratan, has of course, stated that the accused asked the complainant to see him and hurled abuses but it is not revealed from his statement that the accused had an intention to humiliate the complainant in public view. The expression 'public view' has been chosen by the Legislature so as to prevent certain specific incidents of humiliation to the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes on account of their social, economic and historical background. The learned trial Court has critically analyzed the evidence of both the witnesses PW/1 Hemraj and PW/2 Vidhyaratan and given its finding that the offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act of 1989 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused respondent. However, the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused intentionally insulted Hemraj with an intent to hurt his pride or dignity. Mere use of words `Minte' cannot be taken such as to humiliate in a place of public view. Such words are even used in route. The intention is to be gathered from the conduct of the accused which is totally wanting in the instant case. 5 The offence under Section 324 IPC is also not proved beyond doubt as neither the bottle nor the broken pieces of bottle have been recovered from the spot or at the instance of the accused. The statement of Doctor given in cross-examination are shaky and vague and do not render any assistance to the prosecution. So far as the offence under Section 323 is concerned, the accused -respondent has already been convicted for the same and released on probation of good conduct under the provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. Neither of the parties have argued on this point. I do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the learned trial Court. The judgment of the trial Court is found to be well-merited and based on sound and cogent reasons with which I fully concur and to my firm view, it calls for no interference. The State Appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed. In view of the above discussion, the State Appeal stands dismissed. (M.C.BHAGWATI),J. /gandhi