1 Appln.: 2956/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2956 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .... Applicant Vs. Nana Baban Kadam .... Respondent Mr. V.B. Konde-deshmukh, APP for State. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 22nd December, 2010 P.C. 1. This criminal application is filed by the State seeking leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 1st February 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.34 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and 323, 504 and 506 Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that on 8th May 2005 at about 9 pm, respondent no.1 had come to Bhavani Mata Temple for Darshan. He had removed his chappal outside the temple. When he returned, he found that his chappal were 2 Appln.: 2956/2010 missing. He, therefore asked PW-3 to search for his chappal. Then there was some quarrel between the two in which respondent no.1 is alleged to have insulted PW-1 to PW-3 on the basis of their caste. The evidence shows that in his cross- examination, PW-3, the complainant admitted that in his report to the Police he had neither mentioned the caste of respondent as Hindu Maratha nor his own caste as Hindu Mang. He was deposing about the caste for the first time at the time of giving evidence in the court. He also admitted in the cross-examination that he had earlier filed complaints under Sections 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against other persons which had resulted into acquittal. He also admitted that his wife has filed criminal proceedings against him. One Ranjana Jagtap has also filed complaint against him alleging molestation. 3. The Sessions Court on appreciation of the evidence found that the prosecution has failed to establish that the respondent had with intention to humiliate PW-3 in public place within a public view had made utterances based on the caste of PW-3. It also held that the prosecution had failed to establish that respondent voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and other witnesses, or that he had committed any act causing 3 Appln.: 2956/2010 breach of peace. Perusal of the impugned judgment and order completely supports the findings of the trial Court. There is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)