JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal , J.: - The State of Haryana has filed this application seeking leave to appeal against the judgment dated 8.12.2009, passed by the Special Court, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhri, whereby accused Rameshwar (respondent herein) has been acquitted in case FIR No. 34 dated 15.2.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 326, 506 IPC and Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), Police Station Chhappar. 2. In the present case, complainant Raman Kumar as well as the respondent-accused are ‘Mistris’ working in the tractor workshops. The complainant was working in the tractor workshop of Balwinder Singh, whereas the respondent-accused himself was having the workshop adjoining the workshop of Balwinder Singh. After three days of the alleged occurrence, complainant Raman Kumar lodged the FIR alleging therein that on 12.2.2007, when he was sitting on a bench in front of his shop, then the respondent-accused, who was also sitting there, asked him to bring a chair for him by calling him by the name of his caste. When the complainant refused and replied the respondent-accused by naming his caste, he got enraged and caught hold of the complainant from his neck and a scuffle took place. The shopkeepers from the neighbourhood separated them and the respondent-accused went back to his shop. After some time, he came back with a sharp edged iron rod and again called the complainant by his caste name and started beating him. He caused injuries on the head, right arm, left shoulder, left hand and both the legs of the complainant, who was rescued by Ram Pal, Rohtash, Sinder Pal and other shopkeepers. The said complaint, on the basis of which the FIR was registered against the respondent-accused, was made after 3 days of the alleged occurrence. 3. After completion of investigation, challan was filed against the respondent-accused and he was charge sheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 326 and 506 IPC and Section 3 of the Act, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of whom PW.1 Sinder Pal and PW.4 Ram Pal are the alleged eye witnesses and PW.3 Raman Kumar is the complainant. 5. 4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses, out of whom PW.1 Sinder Pal and PW.4 Ram Pal are the alleged eye witnesses and PW.3 Raman Kumar is the complainant. 5. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the respondent-accused denied all the allegations appearing against him in the prosecution evidence and pleaded false implication in the case. He stated that actually, the complainant had caused injuries to him in the presence of Sunder Lal and Ranbir Singh. He further stated that after causing injuries, the complainant went to his village and after consultation with his family members, the complainant inflicted injuries himself on his body and was got admitted by his father in the hospital and thereafter, lodged false case against him. In defence, the respondent-accused examined DW.1 Rohtash, the alleged eye witness. 6. The trial court, after considering the evidence and the documents available on the record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove charges against the respondent-accused beyond reasonable doubt. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-State and going through the impugned judgment, we are of the opinion that the instant case is not a fit case, where leave to appeal is to be granted. The trial court, after appreciating the prosecution evidence as well as the defence evidence, has not believed the prosecution version. It has been found that statement of PW.4 Ram Pal was not reliable, whereas there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of DW.1 Rohtash, who has stated that no actual fight had taken place and there was only grappling. The third eye witness, namely PW.1 Sinder Pal, has also not supported the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. After taking into consideration this fact, the trial court has come to the conclusion that statements of the complainant and PW.4 Ram Pal are not trust-worthy and reliable. 8. The trial court, after taking into consideration the medical evidence, particularly the statement of PW.7 Dr. K.B. Gupta, who had medico legally examined the injured, has come to the conclusion that the injuries, which were incised wounds on the dorsal aspect of the left right and little fingers of the complainant, cannot be the result of an iron rod. By taking into account this fact also, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the injuries appear to be self inflicted. By taking into account this fact also, the trial court has come to the conclusion that the injuries appear to be self inflicted. It has also been found that according to the prosecution version, the complainant had received iron rod injuries on his head, left shoulder, right hand and both legs, besides the left hand, whereas as per the medical evidence only bruises were found on those parts of the body which could not have been caused with the sharp edged iron rod, alleged to be having sharp side. Keeping in view all these facts, the trial court has acquitted the respondent-accused. Learned counsel for the applicant-State could not point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment. 9. Regarding the offence under Section 3 of the Act, it has been held by the trial court that the complainant was silent about the caste of the respondent-accused. It has been further held that prima facie there is nothing to show that the respondent-accused called the complainant by his caste name. Therefore, no offence under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act is made out. 10. After considering all the aforesaid factors, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view, which can be taken from the evidence led by the prosecution in the instant case. It cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court, while acquitting the respondent-accused, is totally perverse, which cannot be taken, at all, in the given circumstances. It is settled law that the judgment of acquittal is to be interfered only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. It has been held by the Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal and others, (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53 that the High Court should interfere in the judgment of acquittal only when it finds that the evidence on record clearly and absolutely indicate the guilt of the accused. The High Court should not interfere merely on the basis that from the evidence on record a different view as to the trial Court is possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any ground to grant leave to appeal. Dismissed. —————————