Point of Law: It is settled law that if main grounds on which lower Court has based its order acquitting accused are reasonable and plausible, and same cannot be entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb order of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order in Special Case No. 27 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhrangadhra dated 25.9.2007 recording the acquittal for the charges under Section 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”).

2. The facts of the case briefly are that complainant – Lakhabhai Rupabhai Makwana has filed a complaint before the P.S.O. Dhrangadhra Taluka Police Station and according to the complaint, on 17.2.2005, complainant and prosecution witness Naranbhai Prabhubhai were sitting on Otla of Shaktimata’s Mandir at village Virendranagar. At the relevant point of time, the Respondent – Accused, who was going on Motor Cycle was called by the complainant and he was informed to remove stones from his field as he was intending to cultivate the field. Therefore, the Respondent Accused got excited and gave filthy abuses to the complainant and prosecution witnesses relating to the caste of the complainant and gave him a kick and fist blow and also administered threat to cause death. At the relevant point of time, prosecution witness Naranbhai Prabhubhai intervened and saved the complainant from further beating. Therefore, complainant has filed a complaint before Dhrangadhra Taluka Police Station, vide Cr.No. II-08/2005 for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act.

3. Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 7 witnesses and produced number of 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 25.9.2007, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused person. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Pravin Gondaliya, learned advocate for the respondent.

5. 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.

6. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri referred to the judgment and order as well as the testimony of number of witnesses and also the documentary evidence. Learned APP has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice, hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. It is further contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of learned Judge is based on inference not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law and that the learned Judge ought to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting Respondent with crime produced in this case. In spite of the fact, learned Judge without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of IPC as well as Section 3(