JUDGMENT : B.A. PATIL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Dharwad in Spl.SC.ST.CC.No.15/2015 dated 22.12.2016. 2. Though this case is posted for admission, with the consent of the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor the same is taken up for final disposal. 3. We have heard the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. Though notice is served to the respondents/accused, they remained absent. 4. The genesis of the case of the prosecution case is that, the complainant and the accused were resident of Madanabhavi village. The house of one Nagappa Bajantri is situated in the house of the complainant. There was a dispute between the daughter of Nagappa and her husband. The daughter of Nagappa was residing in her father's house. In that light on 19.12.2014 during night hours some of the villagers gathered in the house of Nagappa Bajantri to settle the dispute in between his daughter and her husband. Accused No.1 also went there and enquired with the complaint as to what is going on. The complainant abused and told accused No.1 to go. All the accused persons picked up quarrel with the complainant and assaulted on him with hands and abused him by taking name of his caste. The wife of the complainant and mother intervened, at that time, the accused persons abused them also. Thereafter the complainant went inside the house and after went to the civil hospital and took treatment and he was referred to KIMS hospital for treatment. Thereafter the complainant took the treatment in a private Nursing home and he filed complainant before the jurisdictional police. 5. On the basis of the complaint, the investigating officer investigated the case and filed charge sheet before the jurisdictional Court. The Special Court took the cognizance of the offences and secured the presence of the accused and after hearing the learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused, the charge was framed. Accused pleaded not guilty, they claims to be tried. 6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined 15 witnesses and got marked 10 documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded by putting the incriminating material, but the same have been denied. The accused have not led any evidence. Accused pleaded not guilty, they claims to be tried. 6. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution got examined 15 witnesses and got marked 10 documents. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded by putting the incriminating material, but the same have been denied. The accused have not led any evidence. After considering the material placed on record, the Special Court acquitted the accused holding that the evidence produced is not believable. Being aggrieved by the same, the State is before this Court. 7. It is submission of the leaned Additional State Public Prosecutor that, the judgment of the Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record. Though PW.1 and other witnesses who are injured have specifically deposed about the overtacts of each of the accused and abusing the complainant by taking name of the caste and the same has not been properly considered and appreciated by the Trial Court. He further submitted that the evidence of eyewitnesses have been discarded by the trial Court. He further submitted that the trial court has failed to properly appreciate the preposition of law and without proper presumption and assumption has come to a wrong conclusion and has wrongly acquitted the respondents accused. On these grounds he prayed to allow the appeal and to convict the accused. 8. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the said submission made by the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor and perused the records. 9. Pw.1 is the complainant. In his evidence, he has reiterated the contents of the complaint. During the course of cross-examination it has been elicited that the complainant has gone to settle the dispute as an elder person. But at the time the complaint was registered, the age of complainant was 28 years. As such, the trial Court has not believed that, he went there to resolve the dispute between the daughter and son-in-law of Nagappa. In his evidence he has also deposed that the accused have assaulted on his stomach, head and neck. In order to prove the alleged injures the doctor came to be examined as PWs.14. 10. Pw.14 the doctor, examined the complainant on 20.12.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. As per his evidence the complainant was suffering from only stomach pain and nothing else and accordingly he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.9. 11. In order to prove the alleged injures the doctor came to be examined as PWs.14. 10. Pw.14 the doctor, examined the complainant on 20.12.2014 at about 4.30 p.m. As per his evidence the complainant was suffering from only stomach pain and nothing else and accordingly he has issued wound certificate as per Ex.P.9. 11. Pw.15 is another medical officer who was working in the Civil hospital. He has also examined the complainant on 20.12.2014 and he found the pain all over the body of complainant and the complainant was suffering from backache. The evidence of PWs.14 and 15 are inconsistence and contradictory to each other. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that in the alleged incident he has suffered with the injuries and he went and got checked by PWs.14 and 15 is not believable and acceptable. There is no corroboration in the evidence of prosecution. Even though, it is contended in the evidence of the complainant, the accused have abused by taking the caste of the complainant and have abused him as "Korava Soolemagane". As per the caste certificate issued by the Tahasildar, which is marked at Ex.P.6, the caste of the complainant is "Korama" which is coming under the SC/ST community. The evidence of complainant that, he belongs to Korava community cannot be acceptable in this behalf. The evidence of PWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 that they are the interested testimony and their evidence is surrounded with many contradictions with regard to the alleged incident is concerned. 12. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the alleged incident has taken place in-front of the house of PW.9. Who is considered to be a star witness at the time of the alleged incident. He has not supported the case of the prosecution and he has been treated as hostile. 13. Admittedly alleged incident has taken place at about 11.00 p.m., in the midnight. No witnesses have deposed that, what was the lighting arrangement, in which, they have seen the alleged incident. Under such circumstances, the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 is also not acceptable in this particular behalf. The very presence of the said witnesses at the place of incident itself appears to be doubtful and not acceptable. 14. No witnesses have deposed that, what was the lighting arrangement, in which, they have seen the alleged incident. Under such circumstances, the evidence of eyewitnesses PWs.4, 5, 6 and 7 is also not acceptable in this particular behalf. The very presence of the said witnesses at the place of incident itself appears to be doubtful and not acceptable. 14. Pw.5 has stated in his evidence that, only after hearing the noise, she came outside the house and saw the accused assaulting the complainant with hands. No where, she has stated that the accused have assaulted the complainant on his stomach or on his head and other parts of the body. The incident has taken place as stated above at 11.00 p.m. and how she has noticed all those incidents is not acceptable. 15. On careful perusal of the entire evidence on record, admittedly the evidence of doctors and complainant itself creates a doubt and when the entire evidence reveals that, except interested testimony of the complainant and close relatives, no independent material worth believable has been placed on record to substantiate the case of the prosecution. The trial court after considering the said material has come to a right conclusion and has rightly acquitted the accused and there are no good grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial court and the same deserves to be confirmed. 16. We have carefully and cautiously gone through the judgment of the trial court. It is well established principals of law. If the trial Court after exercising its discretion has come to the conclusion that, the material placed before the Court is not cogent and acceptable and accordingly the accused have been acquitted. Under such circumstances, the appellate Court would be very slow in interfering with such orders. There is no perversity or illegality in passing such orders. Under such circumstances, the appeal is devoid of merits and it is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.