ORDER : 1. This Appeal filed by the appellant under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.08.2020 passed by the Special Atrocity and 6th Additional District Judge, Banaskantha, Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Court') in Special (Atrocity) Case No.11/2016 whereby the Special Court has acquitted the respondents (original accused) from the charges levelled against them for the offences under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant – complainant was doing business of photography in the name and style of 'OK Studio' (Shop) in the commercial complex situated at Palanpur which belonged to Madhavlal Patel – the father of the accused No.1 to 4. The complainant was carrying on his business in the said shop since the last more than 45 years. As per the complaint lodged on 06.12.2015, the accused No.1 to 4 had come to the shopping complex under the guise of repairing the stair case angle and as the said complex was very old and in a dilapidated condition, the appellantcomplainant had cooperated with the accused in carrying out the repair work. However, on 09.10.2015, the accused had illegally cut off the electricity of the shop, and on 10.12.2015 the complainant had come to know that the ceiling of the shop was broken by the accused, about which the complainant had informed the neighbours of the shop. Thereafter, at 10.00 a.m. the accused No.1 to 4 came to the shop of the complainant and threatened him to vacate the shop immediately, to which the complainant responded that the accused can initiate legal proceedings that may be available to them. The said accused thereafter, got caught hold of the complainant and started abusing him openly with an intention to humiliate him in public. The complainant therefore lodged the complaint which was registered as C.R. No.3207/2015 for the offences under Section 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act on 11.12.2015. 3. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation had filed the chargesheet before the concerned Court, where the case was registered as Criminal Case No.257/2016. 3. The Investigating Officer after completing the investigation had filed the chargesheet before the concerned Court, where the case was registered as Criminal Case No.257/2016. Since the case was triable by the Special Court, the same was transferred to the Special Court where it was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.11/2016. The Special Court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted all the accused from the charges leveled against them. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the present Appeal has been filed by the Appellant-complainant. 4. Learned Advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta appearing for the appellant submits that the Special Court has committed a gross error in not believing the witnesses examined by the complainant and in giving the benefit of doubt to the respondents accused. According to learned Advocate Mr. Mehta the prosecution had duly proved that the respondents had intentionally insulted the complainant who belonged to the Scheduled Caste, to humiliate him in public view and hence, a clear case under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act was made out. 5. In the opinion of the Court, there is hardly any substance in the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Vishal Mehta for the appellant. It is true that the appellantcomplainant had examined himself at Exhibit 69 and his brother – Hasmukhbhai Prakashbhai Parmar at Exhibit 90 as also other witnesses – Rakeshkumar Ashokbhai Raval at Exhibit 101, Bhikhabhai Muljibhai Chorasiya at Exhibit 103 and Kamleshkumar Kanubhai Soni at Exhibit 120 in support of his case that the respondents accused had insulted the complainant and had uttered abusive words in respect of his caste, however, it may be noted that the witness – Hasmukhbhai Prakashbhai Parmar happened to be the real brother of the complainant and the witness – Rakeshkumar Ashokbhai Raval and Kamleshkumar Kanubhai Soni were the tenants of the accused and neighbours of the complainant's shop. It may also be noted that a civil case is also pending between the parties with regard to the recovery of possession filed by the respondents, and the possibility of the complainant filing a false case under the Atrocities Act to show the gravity of the offence cannot be ruled out. The Special Court has clearly held that the complainant did not want to vacate the premises and therefore, a false case was lodged against the accused. The Special Court has clearly held that the complainant did not want to vacate the premises and therefore, a false case was lodged against the accused. The Special Court has also while interpreting provisions contained in Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC, has came to the conclusion that the complainant had failed to prove the ingredients of the said provisions of the IPC. 6. As regards the charge under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, it was observed by the Special Court that there were number of contradictions in the allegations made by the complainant in his complaint and in his deposition recorded before the Court. As such, there was no mention of alleged abusive words spoken by the accused in the complaint given by the complainant, and subsequently an improvement was made in his version before the Court. Under the circumstances, it has been held by the Special Court that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the accused had intentionally insulted or intimidated the complainant with the intention to humiliate him who belonged to the Scheduled Caste in the public. In the instant case, even if the complainant is believed to be a member of the Scheduled Caste, the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondents accused had intentionally insulted or intimidated him with an intention to humiliate him in a public space. 7. It may be noted that as per the settled legal position, when two views are possible, the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court should not be interfered with by the Appellate Court unless for the special reasons. A beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Ram Niwas reported in (2010) 15 SCC 463 be made in this regard. In the said case, it has been observed as under: “6. This Court has held in Kalyan v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 632 : “8. A beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan versus Ram Niwas reported in (2010) 15 SCC 463 be made in this regard. In the said case, it has been observed as under: “6. This Court has held in Kalyan v. State of U.P., (2001) 9 SCC 632 : “8. The settled position of law on the powers to be exercised by the High Court in an appeal against an order of acquittal is that though the High Court has full powers to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is passed, it is equally well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused persons, as envisaged under the criminal jurisprudence prevalent in our country is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court. Normally the views of the trial court, as to the credibility of the witnesses, must be given proper weight and consideration because the trial court is supposed to have watched the demeanour and conduct of the witness and is in a better position to appreciate their testimony. The High Court should be slow in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by the trial court. In Kali Ram V. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808 , this Court observed that the golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court further observed: "27. It is no doubt true that wrongful acquittals are undesirable and shake the confidence of the people in the judicial system, much worse, however, is the wrongful conviction of an innocent person. The consequences of the conviction of an innocent person are far more serious and its reverberations cannot but be felt in a civilised society. Suppose an innocent person is convicted of the offence of murder and is hanged, nothing further can undo the mischief for the wrong resulting from the unmerited conviction is irretrievable. To take another instance, if an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes the sentence, the scars left by the miscarriage of justice cannot be erased by any subsequent act of expiration. To take another instance, if an innocent person is sent to jail and undergoes the sentence, the scars left by the miscarriage of justice cannot be erased by any subsequent act of expiration. Not many persons undergoing the pangs of wrongful conviction are fortunate like Dreyfus to have an Emile Zola to champion their cause and succeed in getting the verdict of guilt annulled. All this highlights the importance of ensuring, as far as possible, that there should be no wrongful conviction of an innocent person. Some risk of the conviction of the innocent, of course, is always there in any system of the administration of criminal justice Such a risk can be minimised but not ruled out altogether It may in this connection be apposite to refer to the following observations of Sir Carleton Alien quoted on page 157 of "The Proof of Guilt" by Glanville Williams, second edition: "I dare say some sentimentalists would assent to the proposition that it is better that a thousand, or even a million, guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer; but no responsible and practical person would accept such a view. For it is obvious that if our ratio is extended indefinitely, there comes a point when the whole system of justice has broken down and society is in a state of chaos." 28. The fact that there has to be clear evidence of the guilt of the accused and that in the absence of that it is not possible to record a finding of his guilt was stressed by this Court in the case of Shivaji Sahebrao, (1973) 2 SCC 793 , as is clear from the following observations: "Certainly it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely, may be guilty before a court, can be convicted and the mental distinction between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure considerations." “9. The High Court while dealing with the appeals against the order of acquittal must keep in mind the following propositions laid down by this Court, namely, (i) the slowness of the appellate court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the noninterference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court." 8.In Arulvelu and another versus State reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 206, the Supreme Court after discussing the earlier judgments, observed in para No. 36 as under: “36. Careful scrutiny of all these judgments lead to the definite conclusion that the appellate court should be very slow in setting aside a judgment of acquittal particularly in a case where two views are possible. The trial court judgment can not be set aside because the appellate court's view is more probable. The appellate court would not be justified in setting aside the trial court judgment unless it arrives at a clear finding on marshaling the entire evidence on record that the judgment of the trial court is either perverse or wholly unsustainable in law.” 9.In that view of the matter, the Criminal Appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed in limine.