The essential principle is that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should only intervene if compelling evidence demonstrates that the guilt of the accused is established beyond reasonable doubt, reinforcing the presumption of innocence.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant/State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 26.09.2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P., in Sessions Trial No. 03-ST/7 of 2014, whereby the accused (respondent herein) was acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) read with Section 3(i)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SCST Act’).

2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, as per the prosecution story, can be summarized as under:

2(a). The prosecutrix (name withheld) got recorded her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C., wherein she stated that the accused (Mam Raj, who is respondent herein) committed forcible sexual intercourse with her on three different occ asions in the year 2011. She further stated that the accused also threatened her to do away with her life and he wrote lett ers with an intention to black mail her. The prosecutrix also stated that the accused used caste based remarks for her and her family members and threatened to eliminate them. As per the prosecutrix, she had purchased a ladies suit from the shop of one Anita Sahni and the accused paid for that suit without her consent. The matter was reported to the Pradhan of the concerned panchayat, where the accused apologized. A complaint was made to Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rajgarh. During the investigation, the prosecutrix was medically examined. Upon the statement of the prosecutrix, police effected relevant recoveries and her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded. It has come in the prosecution story that on 12.08.2013, around 06:00 p.m., the accused caught hold of the prosecutrix by her arm and she was rescued by her husband. It has also come in the prosecution story that the accused used to disturb peace and he used caste based remarks against the prosecutrix and her family members frequently. After completion of the investigation, police presented the chargesheet in the learned Trial Court.

3. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined eleven witnesses. Statement of the accused, u nder Section 313 Cr.P.C., was recorded, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. The learned Trial Court, vide impugned judgment dated 26.09.2014 acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 , 506, 376 IPC read with Section 3(i)(xii) of SCST Act, hence the instant appeal preferred by the appellant/State.

5. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General for the appellant/State contended that the impugned judgment is against the law and facts, based upon surmises and conjectures, thus liable to set-aside. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its right and true perspective, as such the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set-aside by allowing the instant appeal.

6. Conversely, the learned vice counsel for the respondent/accused contended that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is the result of proper appreciation of the material on record and the same was passed after appreciating the evidence and law in its right and true perspective. She furth