JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State and learned advocate Ms. Samata V. Patel for the respondent No. 1 at length.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 22.2.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Narmada (Rajpipla) in the Special Atrocity Case No. 1 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Kantibhai Mohanbhai Rohit registered a complaint on 10.6.2007 at about 9:30 hours, with the Tilakvada Police Station, Bharuch for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indina Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989, stating that the complainant Kantibhai Mohanbhai Rohit is residing at Limpura, Taluka: Tilakvad and the Talapura Village is located near the Limpura Grampanchayat. That, at the time of incident, at night, the work of Pond of the village was going on for digging the pond through the Government Policy and spreading the soil in the surrounded area of the pond. During that time, when the Sarpanch and other people of village were standing there, the accused Thakorbhai Vajesingh Variya came there and told that "Dheda Khalpa tu Sarpanch Banya Chhe, Tari masti hamna utari dau chhu tu badhana Gharpase Mati Nakhvi aape Chhe and Mara Ghar Pase Kem Nakhto Nathi" and by giving filthy abuses to the complainant and the accused got provoked and beaten the complainant and other witnesses, and therefore, the complaint has been registered against the accused. That, after completion of the investigation the Police has filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narmada (Rajpipla) for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989. Then, thereafter, the matter was committed to the learned Sessions Court and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 1 of 2008. Since, the accused has not pleaded guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and the prosecution therefore, led the evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, Narmada (Rajpipla) acquitted the accused and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Zaveri for the State has submitted that pursuant to the deposition of the witnesses, who has supported the case of the prosecution, though the learned Special Judge, has acquitted the accused and thereby committed an error and therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Ms. Samata Patel for the respondent No. 1 has vehemently and fervently argued in the present case that there are so many contradictions including timing of the FIR, wherein, witness has deferred in timing of occurrence of the incident. Learned advocate Ms. Patel has submitted that the doctor has not observed any injury sustained by the prosecution witnesses and the name of the assailant was not given at the hospital before the doctor. She also submitted that the incident occurred at night, the prosecution has failed to prove the case, and therefore, learned Special Judge has rightly observed and acquitted the accused and therefore there is no need of interference by this Court and the appeal may be dismissed.

6. Having heard the arguments advanced by learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court would like to refer as under:

6.1 Before adverting to the facts of the case, it would be worthwhile to refer to the scope of interference in acquittal appeals. 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. However, the Appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is prejudice in favour of the a