JUDGMENT

G. Sri Devi, J. - This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 378 (1) and (3) of Cr.P.C. by the State, challenging the judgment, dated 22.07.2009 passed in S.C.No.34 of 2008 on the file of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases under SCs/STs (POA) Act-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge at Nizamabad, wherein the accused was acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 353 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed in S.C.No.34 of 2008.

3. The case of the prosecution is as under:

4. On 04.03.2008 at 12.30 P.M., P.W.1, who was working as M.P.D.O., Kammarpally, went for inspection to look into the progress of the construction of the houses pertaining to the beneficiaries under Indiramma Housing Scheme in Gandhinagar Colony, Kammarpally and when he was inspecting the progress of the houses of P.Ws.2 and 3, who are the beneficiaries under the scheme, the accused came and questioned P.W.1 about his authority for sanctioning the houses to the said beneficiaries alleging that the site on which the construction was going on, belongs to him and then abused in the name of his caste. Basing on these allegations, a report came to be filed, which was registered as a case in Crime No.19 of 2008 of Kammarpally Police Station. After due investigation, police filed charge sheet, and the same was numbered as S.C.No.34 of 2008.

5. On appearance of the accused, the material on record was perused and on being satisfied, charges under Section 353 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (i) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 were framed, read over and explained to the accused in Telugu, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 10 and got marked Exs.P1 to P8 and after closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. explaining the incriminating material available on record, but the same was denied by the accused. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused, but Exs.D1-Portion of 161 Cr.P.C. Statement of P.W.3, Ex.D2-location map and Ex.D3-Memo dated 01.01.2008 were marked.

6. After analyzing the evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the accused holding that the prosecution failed to establish that on the date of incident the accused used criminal force against P.W.1; prevented him in discharging his duties and abused him in the name of his caste. Challenging the same the present appeal is filed by the State.

7. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant/State and learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/accused.

8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and the trial Court ought to have seen that the ingredients to constitute the aforesaid offence are made out against the accused as the accused had threatened and obstructed P.W.1 while he was discharging his legitimate duties.

9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent/accused, while referring to the limitations on the powers of this Court to entertain an appeal against acquittal, submits that this Court has to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. The trial Court has minutely considered the testimony of all the prosecution witnesses and also took into consideration the defence raised by the accused and then acquitted the respondent/accused, which does not suffer from any infirmity as such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10. In case of appeal against acquittal, the scope of appeal is circumscribed by limitation. Unless the approach of lower Court to the consideration of evidence is vitiated by manifest illegality or conclusion arrived at by the lower Court is perverse, no interference