1 appln4768-09 jpc/- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4768 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Jafar Babasaheb Patel .. Respondents and another Mr. Rajesh More, APP for the Applicant-state CORAM : N. D. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 7th February, 2011 P. C. 1. Heard Mr.More, APP for the applicant State at length. He took me through the record. 2. This is an application for leave to appeal against the order of acquittal dated 28th July, 2009 passed by the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Special Case No.6 of 2006. Both the accused were charged and prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act and Sections 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint of PW-1- complainant, who belongs to Mahadeo Koli, a Scheduled Tribe. 3. The incident is in question is dated 2.7.2007 dated at 1.30 p.m. Admittedly it is a dispute over an open plot adjacent to the 2 appln4768-09 house of the complainant at village Aauj, Ta. South Solapur Dist. Solapur. The complainant is a retired police officer- ACP and the accused are the villagers of the same Village- Aauj. The complainant is residing at Solapur and owns residential and landed property at village Aauj. There is a dispute over the open plot of land. It is stated that the accused allegedly brought some Murum and sand on the said plot which the accused claimed to be their property. On the date of the incident, the complainant happened to be at the village. He protested and there was hot exchange of words. According to the prosecutions the abuses on caste were in he following words: “TUMHI MAHADEO KOLI JATICHE LOK KHOOP MAJLELE AHAT, TUMACHYA MAHADEO KOLYANA GAVATOON HAKALOON LAVATO.” 4. It is also alleged that the accused were also rushed on the complainant but they were prevented by the neighbours who were gathered and separated them. Since the abuses were on caste to which the complainant belongs, according the prosecution it is an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act and Sections 447, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. Learned trial Court has discussed not only the evidence of the complainant but also the witnesses. In all seven witnesses 3 appln4768-09 examined on the small incident mainly of throwing or uttering abuses. Admittedly, there was no assault, nor use of criminal force. Even assuming that there was dispute and altercation, it is quite obvious when both the parties are raising their parallel claims to the said property which is a open plot and therefore the charge of criminal trespass was held not proved. There was no threat or use of criminal force even as per the prosecution story. Thus the entire prosecution focused on the charge under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities ) Act for utterance of abuse and nothing more. The complainant's testimony was not believed so also the witnesses for having heard those abuses or utterances insulting the members of a particular caste or community. The trial Court has narrated the prosecution story, the incident took place and all necessary details and disbelieved the evidence of the complainant for the utterance and the languages used, which is found in para 15 of the judgment, which reads thus: "15. If we go through the evidence and the reasoning stated supra, it appears that there is no consistency in the abuses uttered by the accused to the complainant. There is no consistency as to whether both the accused before the Court have abused the complainant on the ground of caste. There is also no consistency as to whether the complainant was abused in Marathi or Kannad language. There is also no consistency as to whether the accused no.2 abuses in HIndi language. Thus, if we consider all these aspects and particularly considering the fact that there was strained relations between the parties, I think the evidence could not be said to be sufficient to prove that the accused have abused on the ground 4 appln4768-09 of caste, they have committed trespass and have threatened etc." 6. When the charge based only of the utterances, the actual words and the language used become very material and when it is doubtful, it did not inspire the confidence by the Trial Court, then there is no question of re-appreciation of such evidence, when the same is appreciated in the attending facts and circumstances of the case. The Trial Court also discussed the case laws referring to the subject matter but was not satisfied with the veracity and the credibility of the complaint and held the guilt not proved. 7. The instant in dispute appears to be that of the property claimed to be a open plot and there are no other grudge or dispute or malice against the complainant or their community exited in the mind of the accused. The trial Court who has recoded the evidence and observed the demeanor of the witnesses. Reasoning given are sound and the judgment is delivered after taking all the relevant evidence into consideration. In my opinion no perversity is found in the findings recorded by the Trial Court. No case is made out. No interference is therefore, called for. Leave is refused. 8. The application is rejected. ( N. D. DESHPANDE, J. )