IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the acquittal of the accused due to lack of compelling evidence, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Instant criminal revision petition under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner against the judgment dated 29.09.2004, passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Pali, in Sessions Case No.36/2003, whereby the learned trial court acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence under Sections 341, 354 IPC and Sections 3(i) (xi), 3(i)(x) of SC/ST Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 03.10.2002, complainant Nainu submitted a report at Police Station Bali to the effect that accused-respondent No.2 entered her house and caused injuries by lathi and also abused her using caste oriented words. Upon the aforesaid report, an FIR was registered and after usual investigation, charge-sheet came to be submitted against the accused-respondent No.2 in the Court concerned.

3. The learned Special Court, SC/ST Act framed charge against the accused-respondent No.2 for offences under Sections 451, 341, 323, 354 IPC and Sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act and upon denial of guilt by the accused-respondent No.2, commenced the trial. During the course of trial, as many as nine witnesses were examined. Thereafter, statement of the accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

4. Upon conclusion of the trial, learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 29.09.2004 acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence as mentioned earlier. Hence, this revision petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-complainant has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent No.2 regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court has not considered the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 for offence under Sections 341, 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused-respondent No.2. 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 aforesaid offences.

6. Per contra, counsel for the accused-respondent No.2 submits that the learned trial court has passed a detailed and reasoned order of acquittal, which requires no interference from this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment as well as considered the material available on record.

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, 354 IPC and Section 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi) of SC/ST Act.

9. In the light of aforesaid discussion, the petitioner-complainant 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. The learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 from the offence. The order passed by the learned trial court is a detailed and reasoned order and the same does not warrant any interference from this Court.

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