JUDGMENT : 1. This acquittal appeal under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 21/10/2013 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities) Uttar Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Special Session Case No. 06/2011, whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted respondent Nos. 2 to 4 herein from all the charges framed against them. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Complainant- Sukhdev Ram (henceforth ‘the complainant’) has lodged a report alleging therein that on 2 December 2010, the complainant was working in the Tehsil Office, Kanker. At about 5.25 pm, Advocate- Dakeshwar Soni, Rajesh Sinha and Nikku Thakur, Journalist Channel India came to the office and they after taking report under the Right to Information Act, told him that " Godiya motherfucker, who made you Babu, you don't know how to work, you took time in giving report, Godiya people always do this”. When the complainant told them as to why they are abusing him on caste, they started to beat him and also threatened him. At the time of the incident, staff clerk Ashok Nishad, Narayan Singh Navik and peons Nammuram Mandavi and Patwari Premsingh Daro were present in the room who witnessed the incident. It is alleged that after hearing the caste abuses, complainant’s dignity was hurt. Subsequently, the report was made by him and offence under the above sections was registered against respondent No. 2 to 4 herein. During the research, caste certificate of the complainant being a Gond tribal issued by the Tehsil Office, Kanker, was seized. After recording the visual map of the incident spot as per the description given by the complainant, statements of the witnesses were recorded. 3. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent No. 2 to 4 herein. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined Complainant- Sukhdevram (PW1), Ashok Nishad (PW2), Nammuram Mandavi (PW3), Premsingh (PW4), G.S. Dewangan (PW5), Rama Patel (PW6) and Rajesh John (PW7). Statements of the respondent No. 2 to 4 herein under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C were recorded wherein they have pleaded that they have been falsely implicated and they are innocent. 4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21/10/2013 acquitted the respondent No. 2 to 4 herein from the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal. 5. 4. After appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 21/10/2013 acquitted the respondent No. 2 to 4 herein from the charges framed against them. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and nothing had been come in their cross-examination by which it can be held that no offence is made out against respondent No. 2 to 4, but ignoring all the material against the learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment which is illegal and liable to be set-aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for respondent No. 2 to 4, jointly submit that the judgment of acquittal is well merited and does not require any interference. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the judgment passed by the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 8. Complainant-Sukhdev Ram (PW1) has stated that on 02/12/2010 at about 5:25 pm, when he was performing his duties, respondent No. 2 to 4, herein came there, after seeking the information of bill under the Right to Information Act, they said " Godiya motherfucker, who made you Babu, you don't know how to work, you took time in giving report, Godiya people always do this”. Subsequently, he lodged the report (Ex.P/1). In para 2, he deposed that he belongs to Gond caste. In para 8 of his cross-examination, this witness has admitted that there was pending application of respondent No. 2 to 4 under Right to Information Act for which they had come. He deposed that he was not knowing that what work he was doing at the time of dispute. He also did not disclosed that what work was affected by the act of respondent No. 2 to 4. In para 8 & 9 of his cross-examination, he admitted that on 27/11/2010, respondent No. 2 to 4 had sought some information under Right to Information Act from him. He admitted that in 2007, when he was Nayab Nazir, at that time some clothes were purchased. He deposed that respondent No. 2 to 4 had come to know the said information under Right to Information Act. 9. He admitted that in 2007, when he was Nayab Nazir, at that time some clothes were purchased. He deposed that respondent No. 2 to 4 had come to know the said information under Right to Information Act. 9. Ashok Nisad (PW2) has deposed that because of frequent visiting of respondent No. 2 to 4 to the complainant, the work was being affected, however, this version has not been stated by the complainant in his statement. In cross-examination, he has only deposed that because of frequent visiting of respondent No. 2 to 4 to the complainant, official work was affected. 10. Nammu Mandavi (PW3) has not deposed regarding interruption in work of the complainant by respondent No. 2 to 4. 11. Premsingh (PW4) has stated in his statement that he had listened that respondent No. 2 to 4 had said to the complainant that " Godiya motherfucker, who made you Babu, you don't know how to work, you took time in giving report, Godiya people always do this”. However, this witness in cross-examination has admitted that he had not listened that respondent No. 2 to 4 abused the complainant. 12. Rama Patel, DSP (PW6) has stated in cross-examination that no permission was acquired from the Court with regard to Section 186 of the IPC. He also deposed that in Ex.P/5, there is no mention about sitting place of other witnesses. He has recorded the statement of Ashok Nishad (PW2) on 07/02/2010 and Ashok in his statement had stated that because of frequent visiting of respondent No. 2 to 4 to the Complainant, official work was being interrupted. PW6, Rama Patel has admitted that he had submitted the investigation report after 30 days. 13. Perusal of Ex.P/1 which is a written report submitted by the Complainant would show that there is no mention in the said report that what work was affected by respondent No. 2 to 4. Though, PW2, Ashok Nishad, PW3, Nammu Mandavi and PW4, Prem Singh have stated in their statements that because of frequent visiting of respondent No. 2 to 4, official work was affected, but the complainant in his statement himself has not stated any where about interruption of official work. It is the admission of the complainant himself that there was a pending application of respondent No. 2 to 4 under Right to Information Act, for which they had come to the office. It is the admission of the complainant himself that there was a pending application of respondent No. 2 to 4 under Right to Information Act, for which they had come to the office. Thus, in absence of such omission and contradictory statements of the witnesses, it is hard to believe that any type of official work was affected by respondent No. 2 to 4. 14. Admittedly, there was application pending of respondent No. 2 to 4 under Right to Information Act, wherein they have sought certain information regarding stitching of dress of Kotwar. The complainant has admitted that in 2007 he was Nayab Nazir and at that time certain clothes were purchased and respondent No. 2 to 4 had come to know the information of that under Right to Information Act. 15. Ex.D/7 and Ex.D/8 which is pending departmental inquiry against the complainant which has been supported by Arvind Ekka, Section Officer, Revenue, Collector Office. On going through Ex.D/7 and Ex.D/8, it comes out that the departmental inquiry is with regard to stitching of dress of Kotwar, for which respondent No. 2 to 4 had sought for information under Right to Information Act. 16. It is a well settled law that an order of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference. It is also pertinent to mention here that when the Trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the evidence, the oral as well as documentary evidence, then the Appellate Court has right to reverse the decision of the trial Court. In absence of compelling and substantial reasons for doing so, if there are two possible or plausible reasons found from the record, the Appellate Court always should accept the decision of the trial court. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2018) 18 SCC 540 has held that the appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 18. In this case, the trial Court on the basis of material available on record found that firstly, there was a dispute of 2007 regarding uniform scam, for which respondent No. 2 to 4 had sought information under Right to Information Act; secondly, respondent No. 2 had published news (Ex.P/12) regarding uniform scam in the newspaper published by respondent No. 3 & 4 on 03/10/2010; and thirdly, there was a departmental proceeding initiated against the complainant with regard to uniform scam, therefore, in the revenge of that, the complainant, after too much delay after the incident, lodged the report against respondent No. 2 to 4. 19. The trial Court also found that an offense under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act is constituted when a member of a non-Scheduled Caste in a place of public opinion insulting a member of a Scheduled Caste there has to be intentional insult or intimidation with an intention, merely calling a person by the name of their caste may amount to insult or abuse, but does not meet with the ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act. 20. Considering the above findings and reasons recorded by the Trial court, I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and acquitted respondent No. 2 to 4 from the charges framed against them. 21. Consequently, the Acquittal appeal is dismissed. 22. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court as well as Appellate Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.