JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. The instant appeal stands directed by the State of H.P. against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, rendered on 18.12.2007 in Sessions Trial No. 21 of 2005 whereby, he acquitted the accused/respondents herein for theirs allegedly committing an offence punishable under Sections 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The facts relevant to decide the instant case are that complainant Amka Ram (PW1) filed a private complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sarkaghat with the allegations that on 18.3.2002 at about 9.00 p.m., the complainant was in his house and in the meantime accused Chamaru Ram came near his house and started abusing the complainant by saying ?JULAHE DAGI TUNE BAURI KA PANI CHHUIH DIA JIS SE PANI GANDA HO GAYA, MEIN TUJHE APNE GHAR KE PAS KI BAURI SE PAANI NAHIN BHARNE DUNGA?. The accused also gave threat to the complainant not to fetch water from the said Bawri otherwise the accused will do away with his life. In the meanwhile, accused Narain Singh came on the spot and joined hands with accused Chamaru Ram and also uttered abusive words and threatened to do away with the life of the complainant. The complainant is ?Julaha? by caste, a Scheduled Caste whereas both the accused are from very high caste. The accused by uttering aforesaid filthy words had hurt the feelings of the complainant. After filing of the above complaint the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered for registration of the case under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. on the basis of which FIR Ex. PE was registered against the accused in police station Sarkaghat by deceased Inspector Tulsi Ram. Thereafter, the investigation of the case was entrusted to Inspector Manoj Kumar, PW-6, who prepared the site plan and also recorded the statements of Ambika Ram, Parwati Devi, Lalman, Munshi Ram and Hem Raj. Ramesh Chhajta, PW-7 has conducted partial investigation of the case and tried to prove handwriting of Tulsi Ram on the FIR Ex.PE. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. Ramesh Chhajta, PW-7 has conducted partial investigation of the case and tried to prove handwriting of Tulsi Ram on the FIR Ex.PE. 3. On conclusion of the investigations, into the offence, allegedly committed by the accused, a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was prepared and filed in the competent Court. 4. The accused were charged by the learned trial Court for theirs committing an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989. In proof of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. On conclusion of recording of prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded by the trial Court, in which they claimed innocence and pleaded false implication. However, they did not lead any defence evidence. 5. On an appraisal of the evidence on record, the learned trial Court, returned findings of acquittal in favour of the accused/respondent herein. 6. The State of H.P. is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The learned Deputy Advocate General has concertedly and vigorously contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court standing not based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, rather, theirs standing sequelled by gross mis-appreciation of material on record. Hence, he contends qua the findings of acquittal being reversed by this Court in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction and theirs being replaced by findings of conviction. 7. On the other hand, the learned defence counsel has with considerable force and vigour, contended qua the findings of acquittal recorded by the learned Court below standing based on a mature and balanced appreciation of evidence on record and theirs not necessitating interference, rather theirs meriting vindication. 8. This Court with the able assistance of the learned counsel on either side, has, with studied care and incision, evaluated the entire evidence on record. 9. The mandate constituted in Rule 7 of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989 qua an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police standing alone foisted with authority to investigate offences constituted in the Act aforesaid, mandate whereof stands approbated by a catena of judicial decisions reported in S.M. Kumar vs. State of A.P., 2004 Cr. L.J. (NOC) 347 (Andh Pra), Chandra Sekhar Pant vs. State of Orissa, 2004 Cr. L.J. 2626 and Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2004 Cr.L.J., 869 and in State of H.P. vs. Baldev Bhandari and others 2006 (1) SLC 33 also therewithin a pronouncement occurs qua on infraction of the mandate comprised in the aforesaid renditions, the trial standing vitiated whereupon the accused stands entitled to acquittal, verdicts whereof stand aptly meted deference by the learned trial Court evidently when the relevant investigations stood initially not conducted by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police rather stood conducted by an Inspector, whereupon the aforesaid mandate stood infracted hence concomitantly aptly prodded the learned trial Court to pronounce qua the relevant investigations standing stained with a taint of vitiation whereupon it aptly pronounced an order acquitting the accused for the offences constituted in the apposite FIR. 10. The view aforesaid as propounded by the learned trial Court below for its hence recording an order of acquittal vis-a-vis the accused stands contended by the learned Deputy Advocate General to be amenable for reversal given the Inspector concerned only partly investigating the case whereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police concerned, who held the statutory authorization to hold investigations, holding the relevant investigations in the case, whereupon hence he contends of the investigations conducted precedingly by the Inspector concerned getting rid of the stain of the relevant statutory interdiction against his investigating the offences. However, the aforesaid submission warrants its standing dispelled by this Court imperatively when no part of investigations at any stage were enjoined to be held by the Inspector rather were enjoined to be not only at the out set contrarily throughout thereafter solitarily held by an officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even otherwise on merits, the learned trial Court had alluded to the testimonies of the relevant witnesses who deposed as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. However, the testimony of PW-1, who though testified in support of the allegations constituted in the complaint comprised in Ex.PA, yet his testification holds no tenacity in the evident fact of his communicating therein qua his standing afflicted with an auditory impairment, impairment whereof constrained him to omit to unequivocally testify qua his hearing the voices of the accused/respondents. However, the testimony of PW-1, who though testified in support of the allegations constituted in the complaint comprised in Ex.PA, yet his testification holds no tenacity in the evident fact of his communicating therein qua his standing afflicted with an auditory impairment, impairment whereof constrained him to omit to unequivocally testify qua his hearing the voices of the accused/respondents. Since his auditory impairment disabled him to identify the voices of the respondents/accused, in sequel, his testification qua the accused hurling vituperative penal abuses upon him holds no credence. Likewise, he has testified qua his not sighting the accused properly. The effect of his also omitting to depose unequivocally qua his sighting the accused cannot hold any capitalization to the prosecution to infer therefrom qua his testification firmly establishing the factum of the accused being the persons, who committed the alleged offences. Even though, PW-1 ascribes an inculpatory role to accused Narain Singh yet the incriminatory role fastened by the complainant qua accused Narain Singh is minimal besides is bereft of penal elements given PW-1 testifying qua him qua his making utterances ?TU KAYA BAK RAHA HAI?, utterances whereof do not hold any element of inculpability under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of atrocities) Act, 1989. 11. Be that as it may, on a scanning of his testimony, it surges forth qua his acquiescing qua six harijan families still continuously fetching water from the bawari wherefrom he was prevented to draw water by the accused/respondents besides with his also acquiescing to the suggestion put him while his standing held for cross-examination by the learned defence counsel qua the mules of accused Chamaru damaging his crop whereafter he had held a verbal wrangle with him, is a pointer to the complainant prior to the incident holding inimicality vis-à-vis the accused wherefrom it is apt to conclude qua the penal role as stands ascribed to the accused by him being concocted besides to wreak vendetta upon the accused/respondents. Even though PW-2 the son of the complainant has concerted to lend corroborative vigour to the testimony of his father yet his testification wanes, conspicuously, when the testification of PW-1 whereto he concerts to lend corroboration stands ingrained with a pervasive vice of incredulity, necessarily when the testification of PW-1, who lodged a complaint Ex.PA against the accused was enjoined to be bereft of any traces of incredulity, whereas for reasons aforestated, his testimony stands ingrained with a pervasive taint of inveracity. As a corollary, any testification in corroboration thereto lent by PW-2 is to suffer the concomitant fate qua worth, if any, it holds falling apart. Predominantly, the independent witness PW-3 has not supported the prosecution case. In sequel, the entire edifice of prosecution case gets jettisoned. 12. For the reasons which have been recorded hereinabove, this Court holds that the learned trial Court below has appraised the entire evidence on record in a wholesome and harmonious manner apart therefrom the analysis of the material on record by the learned trial Court does not suffer from any perversity or absurdity of mis-appreciation and non appreciation of evidence on record, rather it has aptly appreciated the material available on record. 13. Consequently, I find no merit in the instant appeal which is accordingly dismissed and the judgment of acquittal recorded in favour of the accused/respondent herein by the learned trial Court is affirmed. Records be sent back forthwith.