An acquittal can only be overturned if the trial court's decision is unreasonable or contrary to the evidence presented.

Judgment :

MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.

1.No one appeared on behalf of appellant on 03.01.2025 and the matter was posted in the month of March, 2025. Today, again no one is present, even in the second round.

2. The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 32/2018 whereby, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.2 from offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a written report against the accused respondent no.2 stating therein that on 04.02.2017 when the appellant was driving his bus, the respondent no.2 intercepted him and hurled caste abusive language and also beaten him. Upon the said report, FIR No. 59/2017 was registered and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the respondent no.2. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent no.2 for offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded who stated that the complainant has falsely implicated the respondent no.2. He also exhibited certain documents in defence.

5. After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.2 from offence mentioned above vide judgment dated 30.09.2024 as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. As per memo of appeal, the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted the respondent no.2 from offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is mentioned that the complainant has specifically stated that the respondent no.2 had hurled caste abusive language and beaten him. However, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.2 on the basis of minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses, granting him benefit of doubt. The fact with regard to beating and abuses have been stated by the complainant in his court statement and also by other witnesses, therefore, adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondent no.2 but the court has acquitted the respondent no.2 giving him benefit of doubt. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be punished for the alleged offence.

7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State supported the arguments made by counsel for the appellant.

8. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the material on record.

9. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the court below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond reasonable doubt, as there are material contradictions, omissions in the statement of witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the trial 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 the trial Court has ignored the evidence o