Judgment : (MANOJ KUMAR GARG, J.) The appeal is time barred by 60 days. An application has been filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the application is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned and the matter is taken up for hearing. 2. The appellant has filed the present criminal appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 26.07.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Pali in Sessions Case No. 253/2018 whereby, the learned trial court acquitted the respondent No.2 from the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/St (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellate complainant filed a complaint before the court of Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act stating therein that complainant was working in a private hospital where one Varsha who was relative of a colleague was admitted for delivery. It was alleged that at the time of discharge, the accused respondent no.2, a relative of patient questioned the billing amount and started a brawl. It was alleged that when the complainant tried to pacify him, the accused respondent abused the complainant using caste oriented language. 4. The complaint was sent to the concerned Police station, where the FIR was registered and the police started investigation. After investigation, the police filed challan against the respondent no.2 for offence under Section 323 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Thereafter, charges were framed against the respondents for the aforesaid offences. 5. The prosecution in support of its case examined twelve witnesses and various documents were exhibited. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded but no witness was examined on defence side. 6. After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the accused respondent No.2 from the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide its judgment dated 26.07.2024. 7. The statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded but no witness was examined on defence side. 6. After conclusion of trial, the trial court acquitted the accused respondent No.2 from the offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act vide its judgment dated 26.07.2024. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Court below without going through the entire record and evidence mechanically acquitted the respondent from offence under Section 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act despite the fact that the complainant and prosecution witnesses have fortified the factum of beating and hurling abuses to the complainant in a public place. It is submitted that the witnesses have corroborated the prosecution story and have categorically stated that the accused respondent had assaulted the complainant, therefore, adequate punishment should have been imposed upon the respondent but the court has granted benefit of doubt to the accused without any valid reason. Therefore, the impugned order may be set aside and the accused may be adequately punished for the alleged offences. 8. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent-State supported the arguments made by counsel for the appellant. 9. I have heard the counsels for the parties and gone through the material on record. 10. From the evidence on record so also finding arrived by the learned trial court, it appears that the learned trial court has acquitted the accused respondent from the offences as the prosecution failed to prove that the accused respondent had hurled caste abuses in a public on account of the fact that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled Caste. It is settled proposition of law that the aggressor, who is not a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (SC/ST) person, cannot be booked under the 1989 Act merely because the victim of his insults or intimidatory act happened to be a SC/ST person. So far as the offence under Section 323 IPC is concerned, the complainant has failed to produce any medical examination report fortifying any injury. 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 for offence under Sections 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused. 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 for offence under Sections 323 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the accused. In the opinion of this Court, the findings given by the trial Court are perfectly justified and there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the trial Court. 11. 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. 12. 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.” 13. 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.’). 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. 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. 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.” 14. 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. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the criminal appeal has no substance and the same is hereby dismissed.