1 2025:HHC:32955 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP (M) No. :   500 of 2025 Decided on     :       19.09.2025 State of Himachal Pradesh …Applicant Versus Nain Singh & Others …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh,  Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the applicant      : Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent   : Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate Virender Singh, Judge (oral) State   of   Himachal   Pradesh   has   sought   the permission to grant Leave to Appeal, to prefer an appeal against the   judgment   of   acquittal,   dated   04.10.2024,   passed   by   the Court   of   learned   Special   Judge,   Mandi,   Division   Mandi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’), in Sessions Trial (POA) No.55 of 2020, titled as State of Himachal Pradesh versus Nain Singh & Others. 2. Learned trial Court, vide judgment of acquittal dated 04.10.2024, has acquitted the respondents from the offences 1 Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:32955 punishable under Sections 323, 504, and 509 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Sections 3(1) (r)(s)   and   Section   3(2)(va)   of   the   Scheduled   Castes   and Scheduled   Tribes   (Prevention   of   Atrocities)   Act,   1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the SC&ST Act’), arising out of FIR No.139/2020, dated 30.08.2020, registered with Police Station Gohar, District Mandi, H.P. 3. The   Leave   to   appeal   has   been   sought   by   the applicant, on the ground, that the applicant has a good and arguable case and there is every possibility of the appeal being accepted. 4. The Leave to Appeal has also been sought on the ground that the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is against the facts and law. 5. On   the   basis   of   the   above   facts,   Mr. Mohinder Zharaick, learned Additional Advocate General has prayed that necessary leave to appeal, may kindly be accorded in favour of the applicant. 6. Although, reply to the application has not been filed, however, the application has been contested by tooth and nail. 7. Record   of   the   learned   trial   Court   has   also   been requisitioned. Perusal   of   the   record   reveals   that   the 3 2025:HHC:32955 aforementioned FIR, was lodged by Khimi Devi. While lodging the FIR, apart from levelling other allegations, the complainant has got recorded that she was abused and caste based abuses were hurled upon her, by the accused persons. 8. The complainant, when, appeared before the learned trial   Court,   as   PW­2,   in   her   examination­in­chief,   she   has deposed that the accused had called them, as ‘Daagi,  Chanal and  Chamar’,   whereas,   in   her   cross­examination,   she   has categorically admitted that she has not told the police that the accused had called her ‘Daggi,  Chamar  and  Chanal’  and she had   called   the   police   telephonically. She   has   also   not mentioned these words, in her application Ex.P­1/PW­1, which was allegedly written in the Hospital. Not only this, she has also admitted that accused Nain Singh has lodged FIR against her, in the Police Station. 9. From the above facts, this Court is of the view that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence, so adduced, by the prosecution. 10. Keeping   in   view   the   totality   of   circumstances discussed above, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Court, in the present case, is possible one. 4 2025:HHC:32955 11. Hence,   no   ground   for   grant   of   leave   to   appeal   is made out. Accordingly, the application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed. ( Virender Singh ) Judge September 19, 2025(ps)