Appellate court interferes with acquittal only if trial finding perverse, misreads evidence, or solely guilt-consistent view possible; reasonable doubt from discrepancies justifies upholding acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.05.2012 passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmour District at Nahan (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondents (accused before learned Trial Court) were acquitted of the charged offences. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.)

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a charge-sheet against the accused before learned Trial Court for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 3(x) and 3(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 (SC & ST Act). It was asserted that the victim is residing away from the village in a lonely place. The land of the accused is located at some distance from the victim’s house. The accused used to talk indecently after seeing the victim. He used to say that people of the ‘koli’ castes were made for him and he could use them in a manner he liked. She told this fact to her husband, who counselled the accused, but the accused persisted with his behaviour. The victim was alone in her home on 19.02.2010 at about 2:00 P.M.- 2:30 P.M. The accused came to her home and acted indecently with her. She shouted for help, and the accused ran away. The matter was reported to the police by means of an application (Ex. PW1/A). F.I.R. (Ex.PW3/A) was registered in the police station. Dy. S.P.Bhagat Singh (PW8) investigated the matter. He filed an application (Ex. PW8/A) for the medical examination of the victim’s husband. Dr Purnima Thakur (PW4) conducted the medical examination of the victim’s husband and found simple injuries which could have been caused by beatings. She issued MLC (Ex. PW4/A). Bhagat Singh (PW8) visited the spot on 22.02.2010 and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW8/A1). He also prepared a site plan of the place where the accused had earlier misbehaved with the victim (Ex. PW8/B). He visited the place where the accused had beaten the victim’s husband and prepared the site plan (Ex. PW8/C). He recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses as per their version. Nishchint Singh Negi (PW6) conducted further investigation. He recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. Mohd. Salim Khan (PW5) issued the caste certificate of the victim and the accused. As per the official record, the victim belonged to the ‘Koli’ caste, whereas the accused belonged to the ‘Rajput’ caste, which is not a scheduled caste. He issued the certificates (Ext.PW3/C and Ext.PW3/D). He also issued the caste certificates of Shashi Pal and Narender Kumar (Ext.PW5/A and Ext.PW5/B). It was found out after the investigation that the accused, Rajesh Kumar, had molested the victim. Rajesh Kumar and Shashi Pal alias Manju had beaten the victim’s husband when he had asked accused Rajesh about the molestation. After completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the learned Trial Court.

3. Learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, learned Trial Court charged the accused Rajesh Kumar with the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC and