ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. On a complaint filed by one Duni Chand on 8-5-1978, seven persons were tried for offences under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. It was alleged in the complaint that the complainant had invited all the residents of the village, including Harijans, for taking meals at his house in connection with the wedding of his son. All the seven accused arrived there when Nanku son of Dharu and Chana son of Sukhiya were taking their meals. The accused allegedly stated that they would not take their meals at the house of the complainant. They also turned out Nanku and Chana, both Harijans, from there, who ran away, with the result that other persons also ran away from the house of the complainant and in this way the complainant suffered huge loss. At the trial court, Kali Das and Nanak Chand were the only two witnesses examined by the prosecution besides the complainant. Nanak Chand son of Dharu deposed at the trial that the accused persons seeing them told the complainant that they would not eat their food with him and thereafter they left. Nanak Chand, PW did not however state that either he or any other Harijan was made to run away or forced to go out from the house of the complainant by the accused. This witness, therefore, did not support the prosecution case as emerging from the complaint in its entirety. Neither in the complaint nor in his deposition in court did Duni Chand, PW also reproduce as to what exactly was said by which accused. Only a vague and general assertion was made to the effect that the accused persons stated that they would not eat their meals at the house of the complainant. The statement of Kali Das, PW was also non-specific insofar as the role of each of the seven accused is concerned. During the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, the complainant had died. The trial court after considering the evidence in its totality found, on facts, that the prosecution had failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had incited any person to practise untouchability and opined that merely because the accused did not take their meals at the house of the complainant, it could not establish that they had committed any offence. The trial court also found that the allegations in the complaint far from being supported at the trial were contradicted by the evidence produced by the prosecution and vide judgment dated 9-9-1980 held that no case had been made out against the accused and acquitted them. 3. The High Court by special leave, reversed the order of the trial court and convicted the appellants under Section 7 of the Act and sentenced each one of them to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100 each and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days each. 4. The convicts are before us in appeal by special leave. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 5. In our considered opinion the appreciation of evidence by the trial court was proper, reasonable and fair. The evidence of the three witnesses, Kali Das, Nanku and the complainant is of a general nature and is non-specific insofar as the role of each of the seven accused is concerned. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in reversing the order of acquittal. Indeed, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the High Court could appreciate the evidence itself to come to an independent conclusion but in the present case we find that instead of basing its judgment on evidence, the High Court, perhaps swayed by emotions, allowed presumption and conjectures to take the place of proof to set aside an order of acquittal. The approach of the High Court, to say the least, was not proper. 6. On our independent appraisal of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence on record does not establish the commission of any offence by any of the accused/appellants under Section 7 or under any other provision of the Act. 6. On our independent appraisal of the evidence on record, we are satisfied that the prosecution has not been able to establish its case, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence on record does not establish the commission of any offence by any of the accused/appellants under Section 7 or under any other provision of the Act. We wish, at this stage, to re-emphasise that since none of the three witnesses examined by the prosecution stated with reference to any of the accused the particular words alleged to have been used by that particular accused at the relevant time when they came to the house of the complainant, the trial court was justified in recording an order of acquittal and that well-merited order ought not to have been set aside in an appeal against acquittal. 7. Thus, for what we have said above this appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby set aside. The judgment of the High Court is reversed and that of the trial court restored. The appellants are on bail, their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellants.