In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must not interfere if the trial court’s decision represents a possible, reasonable view. Interference is only permitted when the lower court’s reasoning is perverse or unsustainable, as the order of acquittal strengthens the accused's fundamental presumption of innocence.

The present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 13.06.2025 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Araria in Special (SC/ST Case No. 123/ 2020, CIS No. 123/ 2020, whereby and whereunder respondents no. 2 to 6 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court from the charges under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 354/34, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(s) of SC/ST(POA) Act.

2. According to fardbeyan of the informant/appellant, the occurrence is of 26.05.2020 at about 10:00 AM. The informant unfolded the story of prosecution that Government of Bihar has settled 1 acre and 7 decimal land in favour of the informant upon which the accused persons/ respondent no. 2 to 6 were illegally constructing a house. It is alleged that informant, his wife and daughter forbade the accused persons from doing so, upon which accused persons started abusing the informant by taking caste name and claimed that land in question belonged to them and if informant comes to the said land, he would be killed. It is further alleged that when the informant forbade to abuse, the accused persons assaulted the informant by means of fist and lathi. It is further alleged that when informants' wife and daughter came to rescue, respondent no. 2/Ashok Yadav by holding the hair thrashed the informant's wife on the ground. Thereafter, all the accused persons concertedly assaulted the informant's wife and daughter and tore their clothes due to which they became undressed. It is alleged that informant was assaulted in such a manner that he became unconscious. It is alleged that accused persons constructed four thatched house upon the informant's land. During course of assault, silver neckless of informant's wife was also snatched.

3. On the basis of written report of the informant (appellant), Araria SC/ST P.S. Case No. 45 of 2020 was instituted under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC, Section 3(2)(va), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act and investigation was taken up by the police. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons i.e. respondent no. 2 to 5, except Babita Devi/ respondent no. 6 but the concerned court took cognizance against all the accused persons under Sections 341, 323, 354, 504, 506, 34 of the IPC, Section 3(2)(Va), 3(1)(g) of SC/ST Act. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed under Sections 341/34, 323/34, 354/34, 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act against the respondent nos. 2 to 6. Charges were read over to respondent nos. 2 to 6 to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, the prosecution examined altogether five witnesses viz. PW1 Buchni Devi, PW2 Rubi Devi, PW3 Maheshwar Rishidev (informant), PW4 Vijay Kumar Ram (Investigating Officer) and PW5 Manoj Yadav. Some documentary evidence were also adduced on behalf of the prosecution which are as under:-

Ext-1 : Signature of informant on written statement.

Ext-2 : Charge sheet

Ext-3 : Formal FIR

Ext-4 : Registration of SC/ST P.S. Case No. 45 of 2020 on written statement.

5. The defence has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

6. After closure of prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused persons was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which they denied the prosecution story and after conclusion of trial, learned tr