IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R. S.B. Criminal Leave to Appeal No.200 of 2008. The State of Rajasthan through P.P. VERSUS Sharavan Singh son of Shri Bahadur Singh. Date of Order :::: 06/03/2009. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhanwaroo Khan Ms. Rekha Madnani, Public Prosecutor for the State. Mr. Hari Kishan Sharma, Counsel for accused-respondent By the Court : This is leave to appeal preferred by the State against the judgment of the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases Karauli & District & Sessions Judge, Karauli, who vide its judgment dated 16.10.2007 acquitted the accused- respondent for the commission of offence under Section 456 of the I.P.C. and Section 3 (1) (XI) of the SC/ST Act. Brief facts of the case are that a written report lodged by complainant Shiv Lal (PW-2) stating therein that during night of 15.10.2002 at about 11.45PM when his wife was sleeping, along with his son, accused-respondent having `darati' in his hand arrived near to the cot of his wife and caught-hold of her legs. On making hue and cry, accused-respondent run away. When he came to his house, his wife narrated about the said incident of which he has lodged this report. The Police after investigation submitted a challan against the accused-respondent for the offence under Section 456 of the I.P.C. and under Section 3 (1) (XI) of the SC/ST Act. The charge, as framed was denied by the respondent- accused. The prosecution examined as many as seven-witnesses and got exhibited Exhibits P-1 to P-7. After evaluating the entire evidence available on record, the trial Court acquitted the respondent-accused of the charge levelled against him. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as material available on record so also the statements of the witnesses. At the very out set, it is mentioned that complainant Shiv Lal (PW-2) has submitted a compromise, but being an offence under the SC/St Act the same is not compoundable under Section 320, Cr.P.C. and the compromise could not be acted upon. The so-called eye witnesses namely, Mawasi (PW-3) and Roop Singh (PW-4) have been declared hostile. The complainant is not an eye witness. There is no other eye witnesses, except PW-1 Smt. Dhappo (the wife of the complainant), who, in her cross-examination has admitted that the plot on which they are living belongs to the father of the accused-respondent and the way in which she has narrated the story cannot be believed. In her cross examination, she has admitted that accused-respondent came on her plot at 8.00 P.M., 10.00 P.M. and 12.00 A.M. in the night. There is also no infliction of any injury by `darati'. The reliability of this witness in absence of corroboration from any independent witnesses become doubtful. More-so, as per her statement when her son was sleeping with her, but he was not produced. The trial Court by acquitting the accused has not committed any error of law and appreciated the evidence produced in the right perspective. No interference is called for by this Court in the impugned order passed by the trial Court. There is no merit in this leave to appeal, therefore, it deserves to be dismissed. Consequently, leave to appeal is dismissed, and leave is refused. (Bhanwaroo Khan) J. ashok/