IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the acquittal due to insufficient evidence, emphasizing the need for compelling reasons to overturn such judgments.

JUDGMENT :

(Manoj Kumar Garg, J.)

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 372 Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No.2 from offences under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act vide judgment dated 20.09.2022 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Court Cases, Churu in Sessions Case No.165/2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant Khem Chand submitted a written report before concerned Police Station to the effect that on 10.10.2017, when he was grazing cattle in the field of Mularam Meghwal, accused-respondent No.2 came and assaulted him with stick and also used caste oriented language.

3. On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent and Police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed FR against the accused-respondent but subsequently cognizance was taken against the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the charges of the case were framed against the accused-respondent No.2, who denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined six witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, the accused-respondent examined three witnesses and exhibited two documents.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 20.09.2022 acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act. Hence, this criminal appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant-complainant submits that the learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act. While passing the impugned judgment, the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent No.2 ought to have been convicted and sentenced for offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

7. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial.

8. On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent No.2 beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 341, 323 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Act.

9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.

10. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, 2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons",for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed.

11. Similarly, in the case o