Judgment : MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J. 1. No one appeared on behalf of appellant on 03.01.2025 and the matter was posted in the month of March, 2025. Today, again no one is present, even in the second round. 2. The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 30.09.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No. 32/2018 whereby, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.2 from offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant filed a written report against the accused respondent no.2 stating therein that on 04.02.2017 when the appellant was driving his bus, the respondent no.2 intercepted him and hurled caste abusive language and also beaten him. Upon the said report, FIR No. 59/2017 was registered and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed chargesheet against the respondent no.2. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondent no.2 for offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 4. The prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded who stated that the complainant has falsely implicated the respondent no.2. He also exhibited certain documents in defence. 5. After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.2 from offence mentioned above vide judgment dated 30.09.2024 as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. 6. As per memo of appeal, the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence acquitted the respondent no.2 from offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) (s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It is mentioned that the complainant has specifically stated that the respondent no.2 had hurled caste abusive language and beaten him. However, the trial court acquitted the respondent no.2 on the basis of minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses, granting him benefit of doubt. The fact with regard to beating and abuses have been stated by the complainant in his court statement and also by other witnesses, therefore, adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondent no.2 but the court has acquitted the respondent no.2 giving him benefit of doubt. The fact with regard to beating and abuses have been stated by the complainant in his court statement and also by other witnesses, therefore, adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondent no.2 but the court has acquitted the respondent no.2 giving him benefit of doubt. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be punished for the alleged offence. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State supported the arguments made by counsel for the appellant. 8. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor and gone through the material on record. 9. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the court below came to the conclusion by way of detailed and speaking order that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges against the accused respondent No.2 for the offence under Section 323, 341 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act beyond reasonable doubt, as there are material contradictions, omissions in the statement of witnesses. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment of acquittal by the trial Court. 10. In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, : 2011 (9) SCC 479 ,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under: “An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons", for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts etc., the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial Court depending on the materials placed. 11. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602 ,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- “A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. 11. Similarly, in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram alias Vishnu Dutta, reported (2012) 1 SCC 602 ,' the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-- “A judgment of acquittal has the obvious consequence of granting freedom to the accused. This Court has taken a consistent view that unless the judgment in appeal is contrary to evidence, palpably erroneous or a view which could not have been taken by the court of competent jurisdiction keeping in view the settled canons of criminal jurisprudence, this Court shall be reluctant to interfere with such judgment of acquittal.” 12. Recently, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘H.D. Sundara &Ors Vs. State of Karnataka’ (Criminal Appeal No. 247/2011)decided 26.09.2023 held as under :- “7. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: - (a) The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; (b) The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence; (c) The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; (d) If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and (e) The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible. 8. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. 8. Normally, when an Appellate Court exercises appellate jurisdiction, the duty of the Appellate Court is to find out whether the verdict which is under challenge is correct or incorrect in law and on facts. The Appellate Court normally ascertains whether the decision under challenge is legal or illegal. But while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court cannot examine the impugned judgment only to find out whether the view taken was correct or incorrect. After re-appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court must first decide whether the Trial Court's view was a possible view. The Appellate Court cannot overturn acquittal only on the ground that after re-appreciating evidence, it is of the view that the guilt of the accused was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Only by recording such a conclusion an order of acquittal cannot be reversed unless the Appellate Court also concludes that it was the only possible conclusion. Thus, the Appellate Court must see whether the view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting an accused can be reasonably taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot interfere with the order of acquittal on the ground that another view could have been taken.” 13. There is a very thin but a fine distinction between an appeal against conviction on the one hand and acquittal on the other. The preponderance of judicial opinion is that there is no substantial difference between an appeal against acquittal except that while dealing with an appeal against acquittal the Court keeps in view the position that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused has been fortified by his acquittal and if the view adopted by the trial Court is a reasonable one and the conclusion reached by it had grounds well set out on the materials on record, the acquittal may not be interfered with. The appellant has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge. 14. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.