A Delhi court convicted AAP MLA Akhilesh Pati Tripathi in a case of voluntarily causing hurt to a law student in 2020. Special Judge Geetanjli Goel held that the "prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused Akhilesh Pati Tripathi beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) IPC and he is convicted for the same while he is acquitted of the offences under sections 341/506 (1) IPC and under sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989". The FIR was registered on the complaint of Sanjeev Kumar, a law student, who stated that on February 7, 2020, he was allegedly beaten up by Tripathi and his supporters and they also uttered words prohibited under the SC/ST Act,1989. While convicting the accused, the court said, “It cannot be discounted that the incident had taken place and the MLC of the complainant shows simple injuries. The MLC of the accused also shows simple injuries but on that basis, the offence committed by the accused cannot be washed away. In view of the same, the offence under section 323 IPC would be made out against the accused,” the court noted. The court acquitted the accused under sections of the SC/ST Act staying that "it is difficult to believe the case of the prosecution that the accused had uttered any caste-related remarks against the complainant, much less to show any intention to humiliate or intimidate the complainant as he belonged to Scheduled Caste." "Though the complainant had stated about the accused abusing him by caste name, but in the circumstances of the case as referred to above the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST cannot be said to be established in the present case," the court said. Tripathi's lawyer had "submitted that the objective of passing the SC/ ST Act was to save weaker sections who were socially, financially, educationally and economically weaker from atrocities and the sections were not meant to be misused to achieve an ulterior motive which was the purpose of the present case."
