The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for consistency and credibility in evidence, as well as the principle that 'no man is guilty until proven so.' The judgment emphasizes the need for a string joining the evidence of all witnesses to satisfy the test of consistency.

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant criminal appeal filed under Section 378 (3) of the Cr.PC, challenge has been laid to judgment dated 23.3.2015, passed by the learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 01-ST/7 of 2014, whereby court below acquitted the accused/respondent of charges framed under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Briefly stated facts as emerge from the record are that Smt. Vijay (PW1) along with her husband Surender (PW2) filed an application (Ext.PW1/A) with the police station Rajgarh, District Sirmaur, H.P., alleging therein that she is resident of village Mawga and on 30.8.2013, at about 6:00am, when she was going to cowshed for milking cow, then respondent/accused namely Babu Ram, restrained her from going further Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? and started hurling abuses on her. Complainant further alleged that when she made an attempt to move ahead, accused assaulted her with “danda”, as a consequence of which, she fell down. Accused allegedly caught her from her cloths, as a result of which, her shirt was also torn. Accused also threatened to do away with her life, but somehow, complainant-PW1 was able to rescue herself from the clutches of the accused. In the application referred herein above, she also apprehended danger from the accused and prayed that action under law be taken against him. On the basis of aforesaid application, FIR Ext.PW14/A, came to be registered against the accused. Police also got PW1 Smt. Vijay medically examined and her MLC Ext.PA was obtained. During investigation, when police was conducting the proceedings at the spot and demarcating the spot of occurrence, accused came at the spot, having iron pipe and Kudali and started abusing the police. As per story put forth by the prosecution, accused also attempted to attack the police officials. Accused also abused the complainant PW1 and her husband PW2 in the presence of police officials by calling them by their caste “Koli Kalinde” and claimed that he will not let the “Koli Kalinde” pass through the common path. Pursuant to aforesaid action of the accused, police added Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 in the FIR. Since accused made an attempt to attack the police officials on the spot, they also called two more police officials to nab the accused, whereafter accused was arrested and police prepared the spot map Ext.PW14/B. After completion of investigation, police presented the challan in the competent court of law, who on being satisfied that prima-facie case exists against the accused, charged the accused for having committed offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

3. Learned trial Court on the basis of material adduced on record by the prosecution held the accused not guilty of having committed offence punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 IPC and Section 3(i), (xi), (xii), (xvi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and accordingly, vide judgment dated 23.3.2015, acquitted him. In the aforesaid background, appellant-State has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein for conviction of the accused-respondent after setting aside judgment of acquittal recorded by the court below.

4. Mr. Amit Kumar Dhumal, learned Deputy Advocate General, vehemently contended that judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court is not based upon proper appreciation of evidence and as such, same deserves to be quashed and set-aside. With a view to substantiate his aforesaid argument, Mr. Dhumal, invited attention of this Court to the statements of material prosecution witnesses to demonstrate that all the material pro