ORDER :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

1. Instant Cr. Appeal under S. 378 CrPC filed on behalf of appellant-State lays challenge to judgment of acquittal dated 1.9.2018 recorded by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial No. 4/7 of 2016 whereby accused/respondent (hereinafter, 'accused') came to be acquitted of the charges framed under Ss. 354, 323, 506 IPC and S. 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, as emerges from the record is that the prosecutrix PW-1 lodged a written complaint Ext. PW-1/A with the Police Station alleging that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste and accused belongs to a Rajput community. She alleged that whenever her family members came in front of the accused, he not only threatened them but also proclaimed "Oh Chamaro mein tumhe khatam kar dunga"" and also hurled abuses at them. Complainant also alleged that the accused criminally intimidated her minor daughter, while she was coming back from school and on 17.12.2014, at 5.45 pm, while she was going to the well for bringing water, accused caught hold of her breasts with his hands and proclaimed "Aaj mein teri ijjat loot lunga aur tum Chamaron ko sabak sikhaoon ga." Prosecutrix cried for help and pushed accused to rescue herself and in the meantime, her husband PW-2 Sulekha Ram and mother Kalsi Devi, reached spot and accused started pelting stones, as a result of which husband of the complainant suffered injuries. On the basis of written complaint Ext. PW-1/A made to Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, FIR Exhibit PW-6/A came to be registered against the accused at Police Station Sadar, Bilaspur and endorsement to this effect is PW-7/A. After completion of investigation police presented Challan before learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Bilaspur, who vide order dated 14.1.2016 committed the case to the Special Judge i.e. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, for trial. Learned Special judge, Bilaspur, having found prima facie case against accused proceeded to frame charges against them for commission of offence under Ss. 354, 323, 506 IPC and S. 3(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. Prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses to prove its case, whereas, accused despite opportunity, did not lead any oral evidence but tendered documents, Ext. DA to DH and DJ to DN. While making statement under S. 313 CrPC, accused denied the case of prosecution in toto and claimed himself to be innocent.

4. Learned trial Court on the basis of evidence collected by the prosecution, held accused not guilty and acquitted him. In the aforesaid background, appellant has approached this court in the instant appeal, praying therein for conviction of the accused after setting aside judgment of acquittal passed by learned trial Court.

5. Precisely the allegations of the prosecution against accused are that on the date of alleged incident, he apart from making casteist remarks, also made an attempt to outrage the modesty of victim/prosecutrix and advanced unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures. As per prosecutrix, her husband Sulekha Ram and Kalsi Devi (mother) reached the spot of incident after having heard her cries and the accused pelted stones upon husband of complainant, as a consequence of which he suffered simple injuries.

6. To the contrary, accused pleaded that he has been falsely implicated due to personal enmity and at no point of time, he made casteist remarks or made any attempt to outrage the modesty of the victim/prosecutrix. Accused claimed that he was given beatings by complainant and thereafter with a view to save themselves form legal action, planted false case against him.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-à-vis findings of learned court below while acquitting accused, this court finds no force in the submission of learned Additional Advocate General that learned court b