Point of Law: It is well settled by catena of decisions that an appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and consider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 30.09.2010, passed in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 14 of 2009 by the learned Special Judge and Additional District Judge, Porbandar, recording the acquittal.

2. Facts in brief are that on 06.07.2009, the respondents-accused, with a view to grab the land belonging to the original complainant, went to his place and trespassed, and then gave abuses to the complainant and others against his caste and assaulted the complainant with wooden log and knife etc. and also threatened him to kill and thereby, the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 452, 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 143, 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(v) and (x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (Atrocity Act) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, for which, FIR came to be registered against them.

2.1 Upon FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of several witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offence 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, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant-State and learned advocate Ms. Sandhya Natani for the respondents-accused.

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. 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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.

3.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as, PW-4 Somabhai Badhabhai @ Khimabhai, Exh.19 and PW-5 Vijaybhai Somabhai, Exh.25 have supported the case of the prosecution in toto. She submitted that these witnesses are the injured witnesses, whose evidence accordingly, is of much significance. Accordingly, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the depositions of this witnesses however, the learned trial Judge did not believe the case of the prosecution and thereby, has committed a grave error.

3.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that PW-6 Dr. Vipul Nanhalal Modha, Exh.28 has also supported the case of the prosecution, however, the learned trial Judge has also not appreciated the same in proper perspective and accordingly, has erred materially.

3.4 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

3.5 It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has ignored the settled legal position and thereby, has erred in coming to such a conclusion.

3.6 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking this Court through the oral as we