JUDGMENT :

1. Though served, none appears for the respondents. The matter is old, of 2008. Hence, the Court proceeded with the matter.

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 12.04.2007, passed in Special Case No. 9 of 2005 by the learned Presiding Officer and Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (Atrocity), Fast Track Court No. 1, Dhrangadhra, recording the acquittal.

3. Facts in brief are that on 20.08.2004, the respondents - accused, forming unlawful assembly and with a common object, as complainant Manabhai Virabhai asked them to keep their cattle out of the field, keeping grudge of the same, gave abuses to the complainant against his caste and then, beat him with stick and thus, committed the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 323, 506(2) r/w. 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 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, Chargesheet 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 Mr. Chintan Dave 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. It is 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 inasmuch as prosecution witnesses have clearly supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the depositions of prosecution witnesses in true and proper perspective, which is not the case, and has disbelieved 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 record, submitted that though the prosecution has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and thereby, has committed an error in recording acquittal. It is submitted that though all the ingredients of the offence alleged had been proved beyond reasonable doubt, the learned tr