JUDGMENT :

1. In pursuance to the non-bailable warrant directed to be issued, the respondent - original accused is produced before the Court.

2. The matter is of 2008 and accordingly, is taken up for final hearing.

3. 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 16.10.2007, passed in Special Case No. 25 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhrangadhra, recording the acquittal.

4. Facts in brief are that on 07.03.2005, the respondent - accused, gave filthy abuses to the complainant and also insulted him of his caste and threatened the complainant to done to death for hiring passengers in his Chhokado rickshaw and thereby, committed the offence punishable under Section 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) for which, FIR came be to registered against him.

4.1 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.

5. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. C. M. Shah for the appellant - State.

5.1 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 respondent - accused.

5.2 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 and narrated the whole case verbatim. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the learned trial Judge ought to have considered the depositions of prosecution witnesses however, the learned trial Judge did not believe the case of the prosecution and thereby, has committed a grave error.

5.3 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.

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

5.5 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 trial Judge did not believe the same and therefore, the impugned judgment and order suffers from material i