Point of law : It is true that the High Court would not reverse an order of acquittal merely on formation of an opinion different than that of the trial Court. It is also trite in law that the High Court ought to have compelling reasons to tinker with an order of acquittal and no such interference would be warranted when there were to be two possible conclusions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 25.08.2004, passed in Special Court Criminal Case No. 204 of 1999 by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), recording the acquittal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that complainant – Ukabhai Galabhai Senva lodged a complaint before the Sanand Police Station, District: Ahmedabad (Rural) against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 325, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 stating therein that on 14.05.1999 when his daughterin- law (wife of his son) had gone to washing the clothes and her children were playing there, at that time, the original accused No. 2 – respondent No. 2 herein, allegedly gave filthy abuses to them to which, his daughter-in-law resisted and thereafter, with the help of one Bhikhabhai, a member of panchayat, tried to persuaded him, keeping grudge of which, on next day i.e. on 15.05.1999 at about 8:00 a.m., near Gohil Vas, the original accused No. 1 met him and fell him down; the original accused No. 2 came with a wooden stick and assaulted him on different parts of the body and also abused him of his caste and the complainant could be saved with the intervention of others. However, when the complainant was being taken to the home of one Kanubhai Popatbhai, at that time, the original accused No. 3 came there with a wooden stick and assaulted him. Thereafter, when the complainant was at Kanubhai’s home, the original accused Nos. 4 and 5 came there with Spear and Rake and started abusing the complainant loudly, abused him of his caste and asked to send out the complainant and therefore, Kanubhai Popatbhai and others persuaded them and sent them back. Thus, respondents committed the offence in question for which, FIR came to be registered against them.

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 7 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons for the offences in question. The learned Judge trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 25.08.2004, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. By an order dated 05.10.2021, the appeal against the respondent No. 4 – original accused No. 4 is abated.

4. Heard, learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. P. B. Khandheria for the respondents.

4.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove it case beyond reasonable doubt. She submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondents – accused.

4.2 The learned APP further contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of complainant - PW-1 Ukabhai Galabhai Senva, Exh. 12, who has supported the prosecution case in toto and accordingly, there was no reason for the learned trial Judge to disbelieve such a crucial evidence on record. She submitted that the complainant has also produced the Certificate, Exh. 15, related to his caste, which denotes that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.

4.3 The learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge h