The importance of evidence and the burden of proof in criminal cases, and the appellate court's role in reviewing acquittal judgments.

R.P. Dholaria, J.

1. This is an appeal preferred by the State of Gujarat, under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.6.2005, recorded by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 5, Gandhinagar, in Special Case (Atrocity) No. 50 of 2004.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that complainant-Manilal Govindbhai Parmar was residing in Indiranagar Hutment area, Sector 24, Gandhinagar and he was engaged in labour work of masonry. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 20.1.2004, the complainant went for masonry work at BSF area alongwith one Rajubhai and others. At the work place, complainant felt to pass urine and he went for the purpose of urination. The contractor-Harsha Builders asked him about leaving the place and upon knowing the reason, he spoke derogatory words concerning his caste and on opposing by the complainant, the contractor assaulted the complainant and threatened to kill him. Accordingly, a complaint for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, was filed before Dabhoda Police Station.

3. In pursuance of the aforesaid complaint, the Police recorded the statements of the witnesses and after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet which came to be committed to the learned trial Court.

3.1 At the end of the trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and after hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, the learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above.

4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court.

5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed as such.

6. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper book and evidence on record and argued that the judgment and order of the trial Court is against the provisions of law as the trial Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself, it is established that the prosecution has proved all the ingredients of alleged charges against the present respondent. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. It is further submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. It is also submitted by him that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence and thereby committed error by acquitting the respondent for the alleged offences under Section 323, 324, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Schedule Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 which requires to be reversed as such and the accused is required to be convicted. He has further argued that so far as assault over the complainant is concerned, the complainant as well as his friend Rajubhai have supported the case of the prosecution but the learned trial Court did not believe the evidences of complainant and his friend. Mr. Dabhi, learned APP has also drawn attention of this Court to the impugned judgment as well as record and pr