The acquittal of the respondent was affirmed due to insufficient evidence to support the prosecution's claims, emphasizing the high burden of proof in criminal cases.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 08.02.2022 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST, Indore in Special Case No. 77/2019, whereby the respondent No. 2 has been convicted under Section 324 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') and sentenced to undergo 1 year S.I. with fine of Rs.2,000/- and usual default stipulation. Vide this judgment, respondent No. 2 has also been acquitted by the learned trial Court under Section 506 (Part-II) of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(r) of the Act and also under Section 294 of I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(s) of the Act and Section 25(1-B)(b) of ARMS ACT .

2. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid acquittal of respondent No. 2 in impugned judgment, appellant-Premchand has filed this appeal on the grounds that there is sufficient evidence against the respondent No. 2, but the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondent No.2. The appellant-Premchand (PW-1) and his witnesses Dinesh Chouhan (PW-4) and Nirmala Balodiya (PW-6) have supported the prosecution case and deposed that the respondent No. 2 has assaulted the appellant with sword and insulted the appellant by scolding and used indecent words regarding caste. Therefore, the judgment passed by the trial Court is perverse and requires to be rectified.

3. Shri Rajendra Kumar Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, on the contrary has opposed the contents of appellant and submitted that the order passed by learned trial Court regarding acquittal, is in accordance with law and procedure. The respondent No. 2 has already suffered one year and four months of custody during trial, hence, there is no need to get him convicted in each offence.

4. Learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State has also controverted the contentions of appellant and born out the finding of the learned trial Court.

5. Before considering the points raised by the appellant in this appeal, it is worth mentioning that the appellant has not appeared on the last date of hearing and as per order-sheet dated 19.12.2022, this Court has directed to the appellant that no further adjournment shall be given in the matter and this appeal shall be heard after hearing only respondent. In spite of directions issued by the Court, the appellant did not appear before the Court. Hence, this appeal is decided on the basis of contentions raised in the appeal memo. In this regard, it is well settled law of principle that a criminal appeal should be decided on merits based on contentions mentioned in appeal memo. On this aspect, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Shyam Deo Pandey and Others Vs. State of Bihar , 1971 (1) SCC 855 and Parasuram Patel and Another Vs. State of Orissa , (1994) 4 SCC 664 worth referring to the context of this case.

6. In view of the aforesaid proposition and considering the contentions raised in appeal memo, the question of consideration is that as to whether the learned trial Court has erred in acquitting the respondent No. 2 or not ?

7. In view of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, I have gone through the record and the judgment passed by the learned trial Court. So far as the allegation regarding hurling for indecent words used by accused to Premchand (PW-1) offence punishable