In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court shall only interfere if the trial court's finding is patently perverse or based on a misreading of evidence; where two reasonable views are possible, the view supporting the acquittal must prevail.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.6.2013, passed by the learned Special Judge, Una, Himachal Pradesh (learned Trial Court) vide which the respondent (accused before the learned Trial Court) was acquitted of the charges framed against him. (The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience).

Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the police presented a challan before the learned Trial Court against the accused for the commission of offences punishable under Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act (hereinafter referred to as SC & ST Act). It was asserted that the informant Surjeet Singh (PW7) is a member of the Scheduled Caste. He was residing in Village Jasana for 18 years. He used to visit the temple of Baba Asri Augarnath. He reached the stairs of the temple on 11.12.2008, when accused Chaman Lal told him not to enter the temple as it was not meant for the Scheduled Caste. The informant replied that he had been visiting the temple for many years. The accused caught hold of the informant’s neck and abused him in the name of his caste. Pawan Kumar (PW1) and Lekh Raj (PW2) also reached the spot and rescued the informant from the accused. The accused threatened to kill the informant if he visited the temple again. The informant filed an application (Ex.PA) before the police. The police recorded FIR (Ex.PW6/A). Madhusudan (PW9) investigated the matter. He prepared the spot map (Ex.PW9/A) and recorded the statements of witnesses as per their version. Vijay Kumar (PW3) issued the copy of Jamabandi (Ex.PW3/A), a copy of Aks Shajra (Ex.PW3/B), and a report (Ex.PW3/C). Shashi Pal issued the pedigree table (Ex.PW4/A) showing that the informant was a member of the Scheduled Caste. Hari Dass (PW5) issued a pedigree table (Ex.PW5/A) and Jamabandi (Ex.PW5/B) showing that the accused did not belong to a scheduled caste. Statements of witnesses were recorded as per their version, and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was prepared and presented before the Court.

The learned Trial Court found sufficient reasons to summon the accused. When the accused appeared, he was charged with the commission of an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC & ST Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

The prosecution examined nine witnesses to prove its case. Pawan Kumar (PW1) and Lekh Raj (PW2) are the eyewitnesses. Vijay Kumar (PW3), Shashi Pal (PW4) and Hari Dass (PW5) were posted as Patwaris who produced the record. Khushal Chand (PW6) signed the FIR. Surjeet Singh (PW7) is the informant. Suram Singh (PW8) is the Pradhan to whom the informant narrated the incident. Madhusudan (PW9) investigated the matter.

The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.PC denied the prosecution’s case in its entirety. He stated that witnesses made false statements against him, and he was falsely implicated. He produced the document in his defence.

The learned Trial Court held that the accused and Pawan Kumar (PW1) had contested elections for the post of Up-Pradhan. Pawan Kumar had fined the accused ₹21/-. Suram Singh, Madan Lal and other persons were tried and convicted by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Una, on a complaint of the accused. This showed the inimical relations between the accused and the informant party. The accused was visiting the temple for a pretty long time, and there was no reason why the informant should have taken an exception to his visit on the date of the incident. Many independent persons were present at the place of the incident, but they were not examined. All these circumstances make the prosecution's case doubtful. Hence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused.

Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court, the State has filed the present appeal asserting that the