An acquittal under the SC/ST Act can only be overturned if the appellate court finds compelling reasons, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the necessity of substantial evidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 27.11.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Churu in Sessions Case No. 67/2018 whereby, the trial court acquitted the respondents from offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the complainant appellant submitted a complaint against the repsondents stating therein that the accused persons lured the appellant to sell his piece of land with the allurement of getting him remuneration from the Government. The accused persons obtained black signed documents and after forging documents, demanded money from him. It was alleged that the accused persons hurled caste abuses in front of other persons.

3. On the basis of said complaint, the learned Magistrate conducted an investigation under Section 200 and 202 Cr.P.C and took cognizance against the accused persons. Thereafter, charges were framed were framed against the respondents for offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. The prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded and two witnesses were examined in defence.

5. After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the respondents from offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide judgment dated 27.11.2024.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence , acquitted them from offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is submitted that the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story and have categorically stated that the accused respondents had assaulted him and hurled caste abusive language, therefore, adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondents but the court has adopted a lenient view without any valid reason and acquitted ther respondents only on the ground that there were no independent members of the society to prove that the accused persons hurled caste abuses. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be adequately punished for the alleged offences.

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

8. I have heard the counsels for the parties 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 learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondents on the basis of statement of the witnesses. The court below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused respondents beyond reasonable doubt. 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 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 of State of Rajas