ORDER : ARUN BHANSALI, J. This application seeking leave to appeal has been filed to challenge the judgment dated 28/4/2017 passed by the Special Court, SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Sirohi (‘the trial court’), whereby, the trial court has acquitted the respondent. 2. The respondent Ramphal was tried for the offence under Sections 332, 353 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SC/ST Act’) on the charge that on 1/2/2016 at about 4.30 p.m. when the S.D.O, Mt. Abu was undertaking the inquiry, the accused, a Ward Panch, came and started abusing Champa, Sarpanch, gave a slap and pulled her ‘odhni’ (shorter version of Saree). 3. On behalf of the prosecution 9 witnesses were examined. 4. The accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C and produced 03 witnesses and certain documents. 5. After hearing the parties, the trial court came to the conclusion that the complainant Champa was not doing any official work and, therefore, there was no question of any obstruction having been caused. Whereafter, the trial court relying on the statement of P.W.9 - Arvind Poswal, the then Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Jaipur came to the conclusion that there was political rivalry between the complainant Champa and accused Ramphal, which led to altercation in which first Champa gave a slap to Ramphal and in response, Ramphal also gave a slap. Cross reports were filed. The trial court also came to the conclusion that there was no reference to the allegation of pulling the clothes of complainant in the FIR and in the statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C and as such did not rely on the statement. The trial court also came to the conclusion that the allegation under the SC/ST Act were apparently baseless inasmuch as P.W.9 - Arvind Poswal, specifically denied the accused having used any words indicating the caste of the complainant and based on these findings, acquitted the respondent from the charges framed against him. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor made submissions that the trial court was not justified in ignoring the evidence of other witnesses, the presence of accused at the place and the fact that there was political rivalry between them having been found and based on the evidence available on record, there was no reason to acquit the accused from the offences charged. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor made submissions that the trial court was not justified in ignoring the evidence of other witnesses, the presence of accused at the place and the fact that there was political rivalry between them having been found and based on the evidence available on record, there was no reason to acquit the accused from the offences charged. 7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Public Prosecutor and have perused the record along with the statements of witnesses. 8. All the witnesses, who were produced by the prosecution had some political background, however, P.W.9 - Arvind Poswal was an officer, who was admittedly present and had gone for inquiry against the complainant Champa, where the incident allegedly happened. The said witness being wholly independent and a responsible Government officer, the trial court was justified in relying on his statement and acquitting the accused respondent. 9. The finding recorded by the trial court, in the above circumstances, cannot be said to be erroneous. 10. The leave to appeal, therefore, is having no merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.