JUDGMENT :

1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order in Sessions Case No. 60 of 2005 by the learned Presiding Officer & Additional Sessions Judge, 6th Fast Track Court, Gondal, Camp at Jetpur dated 23.5.2007 recording acquittal for the charges under Sections 504, 506, 323, 114, 143, 147 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 the complainant Labhuben wife of Kalubhai Sitapara lodged complaint before Jetpur Police Station being I-CR No. 88 of 2005 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 504, 506, 323, 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The case of the prosecution is that on 3.5.2005, at about 19:15 hours, complainant Labhuben wife of Kalubhai Sitapara, residing at Champrajpur, gave typed complaint at jetpur Taluka Police Station. The further case of the prosecution is that at about 4:00 pm, the complainant went to village reservoir for fetching drinking water, at that time Najmaben, Roshanben, Banuben case there and threw away the water pot of complainant and told her "Tu Bhangdi cho, Tarathi Amo Abhdai" and also gave her filthy abuses. When complainant requested them not to give filthy abuses, they got provoked and inflicted first blows on her. At that time, upon hearing shouts, all the accused persons, with the help of each other told her "Ae Bhangdi Bhagi Ja Nahitar Tari Saravat Nahi Rehva Daiye" and inflicted fist blows and also gave filthy abuses, threatened her by saying "Amari Same Fariyad Karti Nahi Nahitar Tari ane Tara Kutumb ni Salamati Rehva Nahi Daiye and Koi Amaru Kai Kari Nahi Lye, ane Koithi Darta Nathi".

3. Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 9 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 persons did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 23.5.2007, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, learned APP Mr. Chintan Dave for the appellant - State. Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the Respondents/Original Accused. Since the matter is of the year 2008 and the Appeal is Admitted on 17.3.2008 and Bailable Warrant is also issued against the Respondents/Original Accused persons, therefore, the Appeal is decided to be finally heard by this Court.

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 has 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 Sessions 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 learned Sessions Judge is based on inference not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not p