An acquittal can only be overturned on compelling reasons; the presumption of innocence remains unless the trial court's decision is palpably erroneous.

Order :

1. Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-complainant under Section 14-A of SC/ST Act against the acquittal of the accused-respondent No.2 from offences under Sections 3(1) (g) of SC/ST Act vide judgment dated 10.10.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Udaipur in Special Sessions Case No.28/2017.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-complainant Narayan lodged an FIR before the Police Station Kurabad, stating therein that he purchased a land from Smt. Logri by way of registered sale deed dated 20.12.2016 and accordingly after mutation his name was entered and he gave the said land for cultivation to accused Nathu Lal and accused Nathu Lal while constructing the house on the said land tried to take illegal possession of the said land.

3. On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent No.2 and after usual investigation, the police filed challan against the accused-respondent No.2. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondents and framed the charges for offence under Sections 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act . The accused-respondent No.2 denied the charges and claimed trial.

4. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statements of accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C.

5. Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 10.10.2019 acquitted the accused- respondent No.2 from offence under Sections 3(1)(g) 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 from offence under Sections 3(1)(g) 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 offences under Sections 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act .

7. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court and prays for dismissal of the criminal appeal.

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

9. 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 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act .

10. 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.

11. 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 rever