JUDGMENT :

1. The appeal is abated qua respondent No. 6 by an order dated 29.06.2022 passed by this Court. Further, despite sufficient opportunity was given to the rest respondents, they have chosen not to appear before the Court leaving no option for the Court but to proceed with the appeal, which is of 2008.

2. 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 29.03.2007, passed in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 11 of 2002 by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, recording the acquittal.

3. Facts in brief are that on 24.06.2000, the respondents - accused, keeping grudge with regard to the construction of community hall in plot Nos. 234 and 235, for which a Court case was registered and the Court Commissioner was also appointed, the respondents, forming unlawful assembly approached the complainant and giving filthy abuses to the complainant against his caste, beat him up with iron pipe, wooden stick and wooden log and thereby, caused seriously injuries to him. Thus, the accused committed the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(i)(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 be to registered against them.

3.1 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.

4. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State.

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 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.

4.2 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. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the depositions of the witnesses and the fact that, the names of the accused persons were revealed in the evidence of the complainant and in the history given before the doctor who treated him at Bhavnagar hospital, however, the learned trial Judge did not believe the case of the prosecution and thereby, has committed a grave error.

4.3 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.

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

4.5 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking this Court through the oral as well as the documentary evidence on reco