JUDGMENT :

J.M. KHAZI, J.

1. This appeal filed under Sections 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. for short) by the State is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 05.03.2016 in Spl. C. No. 39/2014 on the file of Special Court (POCSO) and (SC/ST) (Prevention of Atrocities against SC/ST) and III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Belagavi.

2. Vide the impugned judgment and order, the Trial Court has acquitted accused Nos. 1 to 4 of all the charges punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SC/ST Act’ for short).

3. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Vide order dated 25.03.2021, the complainant Shahu Bheemrao Mane is arrayed as respondent No. 5.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to their rank before the Trial Court.

5. At the trial, in support of the prosecution case, 14 witnesses are examined as PWs. 1 to 14, Exs.P1 to 21 and MOs.1 to 5 are marked.

6. During the course of the statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. accused Nos.1 to 4 have denied the incriminating material arising in the evidence against them. They have not chosen to lead evidence on their behalf. Vide the impugned judgment and order the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the accused are not proved and consequently accused Nos. 1 to 4 are acquitted.

7. We have heard the learned Addl. SPP for the appellant/State and the learned counsel for accused Nos. 1 to 4 and perused the record.

8. The learned Addl. SPP representing the appellant/State has submitted that the impugned judgment and order is contrary to the law, facts and evidence on record.

9. PW-1 who is the complainant and PW-3 who is the injured have clearly supported the prosecution case and their evidence reveal that the accused persons abused them by referring to their caste and their evidence also prove the overt act committed by all the accused persons.

10. Even PWs. 4 to 7 who are eyewitnesses to the incident have supported the prosecution case and their evidence corroborate the testimony of PWs. 1 and 3. The evidence of PW-13 Tahasildar, who has issued the caste certificate in respect of accused as well as the complainant prove the fact that the complainant belong to a community enlisted under the presidential order attracting the provisions of SC/ST Act. The testimony of official witnesses corroborate with the evidence given by the injured as well as the eyewitnesses. Inspite of such over-whelming evidence, the trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused persons solely on the ground that PWs. 1, 3 and 4 are interested witnesses. The trial Court’s finding is contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

11. He would further submit that, the trial Court has also acquitted the accused persons on the ground that there are material contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The minor contradictions and omissions are natural, especially when the witnesses are coming from rural background and much importance cannot be given to the same. The trial Court has also acquitted the accused persons on the ground that the witnesses from the neighbourhood are not examined. The non-examination of the neighboring witnesses is not fatal to the prosecution case, as it has succeeded in proving the allegations against accused Nos.1 to 4 based on the evidence placed on record. He would submit that, viewed from any angle, the impugned judgment and order are not sustainable and prays to allow the appeal and convict the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Act and impose appropriate punishment.

12. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the accused persons argued that, the based on the oral and documentary evidence placed on rec