JUDGMENT :

1. At the outset, learned advocate Mr. Suraj Matieda for learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the respondents states at the bar that respondent No. 6 - Jagdishbhai Hirabhai Patel has expired. Accordingly, the appeal is abated qua respondent No. 6.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant - State under Section 378(1) (3) of the Criminal procedure Code, 1973 (Code) against the judgment and order dated 31.03.2016 passed in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 18 of 2015 by the learned 7th (Ad-hoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Bardoli, Dist.: Surat, recording the acquittal of the respondents - original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 143, 147 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "the Atrocity Act").

3. Brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 26.12.2013, the respondents - accused allegedly took over the possession of the land belonged to Bhagubhai Chhitiyabhai Vasava, the complainant, and started a "Kola", a country made machine for manufacturing Jaggery and hence, the complainant asked them as to why they started the Kola, due to which, the respondents - accused got excited and infuriated and uttered filthy abuses about the caste of the complainant with intention to insult and humiliate the complainant publicly. They also threatened the complainant to death. That, accused Nos. 1 and 2 also beat the complainant with fist and kick blows. Thus, the respondents committed the offence in question for which, the complaint in question came to be registered against them.

4. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated and after thorough investigation as there was sufficient evidence against the respondents - accused persons, Charge-sheet was filed against them. As the offence was exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused persons and as the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried, trial commenced. To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses and produced several documentary evidence. On conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

5. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant - State and learned advocate Mr. Suraj Matieda for learned advocate Mr. P. P. Majmudar for the respondents - original accused.

5.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant - State 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 - original accused.

5.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant referred to the judgment and order as well as the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the other documentary evidence and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned trial Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and the principles of natural justice and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. It is further contended that the learned trial Judge ought to have appreciated the fact that there were direct as well as indirect evidence connecting respondents with crime in question, despite the same, without properly appreciating the