JUDGMENT 1. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this Appeal under Sec. 378(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging the judgment and order dtd. 2/1/2008, passed by Ad-hoc District Judge-II, Sangli, acquitting the accused of the offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(x) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("SC-ST Act', for short) and Sec. 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 2. Vide order dtd. 12/3/2009, leave to prefer Appeal against the judgment of acquittal was granted by this Court confned to respondent nos.1 and 3 (accused nos.1 and 3). 3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under: The complainant (P.W.3) was a member of college viz. Bharti Vidhyapeeth Prashala and Junior College, Kotij. On 15/8/2006, fag hoisting ceremony was conducted in the school. After the fag hoisting ceremony, the school/junior college had conducted programme. Complainant was on the stage. Some people from village Kotij came to school and requested complainant to attend fag hoisting ceremony of Gram Panchayat along-with students. The complainant stated that school programme had been fxed for about two hours and he is unable to attend fat hoisting programme of Gram Panchayat along-with students. The people from the village went away. After some time, the villagers again came at the school/college premises. They came up on the stage and spoke to the complainant. The complainant informed them that after fnishing the programme, he would talk to them. The accused abused the complainant by referring to his caste. They caught hold ofhis collar and pulled him from the chair, and, assaulted him with fst and kicks. This was witnessed by the students and other members of staff. The assailants were taken away from the stage. The complainant approached the police and lodged the complaint. First Information Report ("FIR', for short) was registered for the aforesaid offences. Pursuant to registration of FIR, the investigation offcer visited the spot and recorded spot panchanama. Accused were arrested. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completing investigation, charge-sheet was fled. 4. Charge was framed against the accused vide order dated7th February, 2007 for the offences under Ss. 143, 147, 323 an 504 of IPC, Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sec. 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 5. Prosecution had examined about eight witnesses. Statements of witnesses were recorded. On completing investigation, charge-sheet was fled. 4. Charge was framed against the accused vide order dated7th February, 2007 for the offences under Ss. 143, 147, 323 an 504 of IPC, Sec. 3(1)(x) of SC-ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sec. 7(1)(d) of Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955. 5. Prosecution had examined about eight witnesses. P.W.1 Arjun Mahadik, P.W.2 Shahabuddin Jamadar, P.W.3 Abhimanyu Kharat (complainant), P.W.4 Abhinany Kharat (son of complainant), P.W.5 Rajendra Thombare, P.W.6 Shamrao Madane, P.W.7 Balkrishna Ambore and P.W.8 Ashok Dudhe (Investigating Offcer). 6. The statements of accused was recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. The accused had denied the incident. 7. The trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges. 8. Learned APP submitted that the trial Court has overlooked the evidence on record. P.W.3 and P.W.4 has narrated the incident. P.W.3 is the victim of incident. P.W.4 is the son of P.W.3. Both are eye witnesses to the incident. P.W.3 was abused on the basis of his caste. He was the principal of the school/college. He was assaulted. The accused wanted P.W.3 to attend the fag hoisting ceremony along- with students at Gram Panchayat offce. P.W.3 was not in a position to consider the request of the accused since the fag hoisting ceremony was conducted in the school where he is working as a principal and the ceremony was followed by the programm of speeches of students held in the school. The students had delivered speeches on the occasion of independence day. The witnesses were present at the scene of offence. Although they have not supported the case of the prosecution by describing the incident of abuses and assault on the P.W.3, the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 ought to have been considered by the Court. 9. Learned advocate for respondent supported judgment of trial Court. It is submitted that the trial Court has assigned reasons for acquittal. There is no ground for setting side judgment of acquittal. 10. The learned Sessions Judge has apparently appreciated the evidence on record and gave fndings of acquittal. The Court has assigned reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case. In the light of the fndings of the Court supported by cogent reasons, there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the view taken by the trial Court. The Court has assigned reasons for arriving at the conclusion that the prosecution has not established its case. In the light of the fndings of the Court supported by cogent reasons, there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the view taken by the trial Court. After accessing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court in paragraph 43 and 44 of the impugned judgment summarized the discrepancies in the evidence, which lead to the fnding of acquittal. 11. It is pertinent to note that this Court had refused leave to prefer appeal as against respondent nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 (accused nos.2, 4, 5 and 6). 12. After scrutinizing the evidence the trial Court has observed that the evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 suffers from inconsistency on material point. Their evidence is not reliable in view of improvement of material point in their evidence. The complainant had not stated several aspects which are refected in his complaint. It was expected that the prosecution would adduce evidence of independent witnesses. The witnesses examined by the prosecution did not support the prosecution case. The complainant admit that some staff members who are belonging to his caste were present at the time of incident. Such witnesses were not examined to corroborate the version of P.W.3 and P.W.4. The Court further observed that P.W.3 had recently joined the school in the village and he had no acquaintance with the villagers. Hence, it is diffcult to believe that people from the village who attended the fag hoisting ceremony in school, and, requested P.W.3 to join fag hoisting programme in Gram Panchayat were aware about caste of the complainant, and that knowingly fully well about his caste they used alleged abuses on caste with an intention to insult him on the basis of his caste. Though it is a case of complainant that he was subjected to assault by fst blow and kicks by six to seven persons, he did not sustain any injury, and, hence, the version of assault is not reliable in the absence of medical evidence to that effect. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is not corroborated by independent witnesses particularly when the incident had occurred at the place it would be witnessed by several persons. 13. It is settled law that in an Appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court can interfere in exceptional circumstances, viz. The evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 is not corroborated by independent witnesses particularly when the incident had occurred at the place it would be witnessed by several persons. 13. It is settled law that in an Appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court can interfere in exceptional circumstances, viz. as failure of the trial Court to consider the evidence, perversity in the judgment of acquittal. Even if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on this basis of evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the fndings of trial Court. Considering the observations of the trial, I do not fnd that this is a case where interference of this Court is warranted. 14. I have perused the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. P.W.1 Arjun Mahadik is serving as a teacher in the school where the incident had occurred. He has referred to the fag hoisting ceremony conducted on 15/8/2006. According to him, P.W.3 had conducted fag hoisting programme. Students had delivered speeches. Nothing had happened in the said programme. He was present with the students. It did not happen that while the programme of delivering the speeches of the students were going on, people from village came there, and, they abused the principal. Since this witness did not support the case of the prosecution, permission to cross-examine the witness was granted to prosecution by the Court. Suggestions put to him were denied by the witness. He was also cross- examined by the defence. He maintained his version that the incident of assault upon the principal did not occur. P.W.2 Shabuddin Abdul Kadar Jamadar is also serving as a teacher in the school. He deposed that the fat hoisting ceremony had held on 15/8/2006, in the school/college, and, no incident of assaulting and abusing the principal by villagers from the village Kotij had occurred. He do not know what was recorded by police in his statement. Learned APP sought permission to cross-examine the witness. Permission was granted. The suggestion about his version in the previous statement was denied by the accused. He also cross examined by advocate for the accused. He stated that on 17/8/2006, for the frst time he came to know about complaint lodged by P.W.3. The complainant (P.W.3) stated that he was serving as a principal in the school at Kotij since 1/6/2006. The incident had occurred on 15/8/2006. He also cross examined by advocate for the accused. He stated that on 17/8/2006, for the frst time he came to know about complaint lodged by P.W.3. The complainant (P.W.3) stated that he was serving as a principal in the school at Kotij since 1/6/2006. The incident had occurred on 15/8/2006. According to him, fag hoisting ceremony was conducted in the school. After fag hoisting, there was programme of students delivering speeches. He was on the stage of school. Some people came at school premises. The said people were requesting him to attend Gram Panchayat offce. He told them that the programme is already fxed, and, he would not come at Gram Panchayat. They were returning and at that point of time one of them stated that they will have to look at him. The programme continued. After some time, the accused came to the spot. Some of them came on the stage. He was called at the side of the stage, and, at that time P.W.3 told them that he would decide about their request after the programme is over. The accused caught him and pulled him from his chair. He was assaulted by fst and kick blows. He was abused on the basis of caste. Thereafter, he went to cabin. The accused continued their abuses. Along-with the staff, he went to Kadegaon police station and lodged the complaint. In his cross - examination, he stated that he joined as principal at Kotij schoolon 1/6/2006. He is residing at Vita. There are no staff members from village Kotij. There were about 300 to 400 students. Since he had recently joined the school at Kotij, he has no concern with the people residing at Kotij. The people residing at Kotij had no concern with the school administration. He was informed by the teacher that the villagers from Kotij are going to invite him for fag hoisting ceremony at Gram Panchayat. He was also informed that after the fat hoisting programme in the school, he is requested to visit Gram Panchayat to honour clever students. The teachers had also stated that the school is inviting the people residing at Kotij for attending fag hoisting ceremony. He admitted that some people from village Kotij present for fag hoisting ceremony. After fat hoisting programme of school, people from the village requested him to attend the programme of fag hoisting at Gram Panchayat. The teachers had also stated that the school is inviting the people residing at Kotij for attending fag hoisting ceremony. He admitted that some people from village Kotij present for fag hoisting ceremony. After fat hoisting programme of school, people from the village requested him to attend the programme of fag hoisting at Gram Panchayat. At that time, he stated that after fnishing programme, he would attend the programme at Gram Panchayat. The villagers left the school and the programm continued. After completing the school programme, photographs were clicked. About 50 people had been to the school. There were seating arrangements. He was assaulted on the stage. Photographs were shown to him. He identifed three persons from village Kotij in the photographs. The people from the village had been to the school to invite him and others for fag hoisting programme at Gram Panchayat. While lodging the report, he had stated to the police that the the programme was already fxed in the meeting held on 14/8/2006, and, therefore he will not come to Gram Panchayat and that somebody had stated that they should look at him. These facts are not refected in his statement. He did not state before the police that at the time of incident some staff members were with him on the stage. He cannot say why it is not so stated in his statement. When he was in his cabin, people were abusing him from the side of window. This fact is not refected in his statement. P.W.4 Abinay Kharat is the son of P.W.3. According to him he was present in the school at the time of alleged incident. He has referred to the incident of abuses and assault by villagers. In the cross-examination, he stated that he cannot assign any reason as to why it is not mentioned in his statement before the police that when people from the village came, they requested his father to attend the fag hoisting ceremony in Gram Panchayat, and on which his father stated them that their programme is going on, and, he will not come at Gram Panchayat. He had stated to the police that some were on the ground and some were near the cabin. This is not refected in his statement. He stated to police that three people came at the spot and gave abuses to his father. He had stated to the police that some were on the ground and some were near the cabin. This is not refected in his statement. He stated to police that three people came at the spot and gave abuses to his father. This version was not refected in his statement. He had also disclosed that his father was in cabin while the villagers were kicking the door and window, but, the said fact is not appearing in his statement. 15. From the evidence of P.W.3 and 4, it is apparent that there are contradictions in their version. Their version suffers from serious omissions. Their version is not corroborated by independent witnesses. There are contradictions in their statements. 16. P.W.5 and 6 are the two other witnesses examined by the prosecution. However, their evidence did not support the case of prosecution. P.W.5 has stated that he belongs to backward class. The incident had occurred at village Kotij. On the day of incident, he was in school known as Lokmate Mohanrao Kadam Saholi. He came to known about the incident on phone. P.W.3 told him about it. He went to police station. He do not know what has happened thereafter. Nothing had happened in his presence. He worked with P.W.3 for one year. When he accompanied P.W.3 at police station, police did not make any inquiry. P.W.6 Shamrao Madane stated that he was working as a Police Patil of village Kotij. In connection with incident dtd. 15/8/2006, police did not record his statement. He attended the fag hoisting ceremony in the school. After the ceremony all of them went to village. He again returned to school. No incident had occurred in his presence where speeches of students were going on. These witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. P.W.7 is the Assistant Police Inspector. He was attached to Kadegaon police station. He registered the FIR. According to him, immediately after receiving the report, the police offcer is supposed to inform about it to SDPO. He conducted investigation. P.W.8 is the Sub Divisional Offcer. He arrested the accused. Charge-sheet was fled. 17. Offences invoked against the accused were not established. Independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution. The witnesses from school do not corroborate version of P.W.3 and P.W.4. It was not proved that there were abuses on the basis of caste in public view. He conducted investigation. P.W.8 is the Sub Divisional Offcer. He arrested the accused. Charge-sheet was fled. 17. Offences invoked against the accused were not established. Independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution. The witnesses from school do not corroborate version of P.W.3 and P.W.4. It was not proved that there were abuses on the basis of caste in public view. No other reason corroborates version of P.W.3 and P.W.4 about abuses on caste. The complainant had recently joined the school. He had no nexus with accused or villagers. The staff was not from said village. The trial Court has observed that it is doubtful that accused were aware of caste of complainant. There are discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses. Considering all these aspects, the trial Court has delivered the judgment of acquittal. 18. There is no reason to set aside the impugned judgment of acquittal, and, hence, this Appeal must fail. 19. Hence, I pass the following order; :: O R D E R :: (i) Criminal Appeal No.455 of 2009, stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.