The judgment emphasizes the presumption of innocence, the need for compelling circumstances to interfere with an order of acquittal, and the power of the appellate court to review evidence.

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 13.04.2007, passed in Special Case No.82 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Deesa, recording the acquittal.

2. Facts, in brief, are that on 14.04.2006 when complainant - Kantibhai Vashrambhai Parmar was at Deesa Court, the respondent - original accused, a practicing Advocate, demanded fees from his relative namely Chhaganbhai Ajabhai and also asked them to fetch stamp papers, and thereafter, further demanded Rs.500/-. It is further the case of the prosecution that, on further demand of Rs.500/- being made, the younger brother of the complainant denied the same saying that his father-in-law (Chhaganbhai Ajabhai) had already paid the amount. Due to which, the respondent - accused got infuriated and slapped the younger brother of the complainant. He also slapped the complainant who tried to free his younger brother and also gave them filthy abuses of their caste. He also raised his hand against witness Dashrathbhai jivanbhai who intervened. The accused also threatened the complainant to done to death to them. Thus, respondent committed the offence in question for which, FIR came to be registered against him.

2.1 Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 9 witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 13.04.2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State and learned advocate Ms. Sweta Lodha for Mr. Virat Popat, learned advocate for the respondent.

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP 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 respondent - accused.

3.2 The learned APP further contended that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence of complainant - PW-4 Kantibhai Vashrambhai Parmar, Exh. 16, 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. The learned APP submitted that the learned trial Judge has taken a very hyper-technical view in the matter inasmuch as for minor contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and the complaint registered by him, which in fact, cannot be termed as contradictions, he has erred materially in holding that there are omissions and/or contradictions in the version of the complainant.

3.3 Further, drawing attention to the depositions of PW-1- Chhaganbhai Ajabhai, PW-3-Jagdishbhai Karsanbhai Makwana, Exh. 10, PW-5-Raghjibhai Vashrambhai, Exh. 18, PW-6-Hansaben Raghjibhai, Exh. 19, and PW-7-Dashrathbhai Jivanbhai, Exh. 20, the learned APP submitted that all these witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate their evidence in true and proper perspective and thereby, has materially erred in coming to such a conclusion. The learned APP submitted that these witnesses were present at the