The presumption of innocence, the reluctance to interfere with an order of acquittal unless there are compelling circumstances, and the duty of the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence and arrive at a just decision based on the material placed on record.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Hardik A. Desai and learned advocate Mr. Aditya Khandelwal with learned advocate Mr. Vijay H. Nangesh for the respondent at length.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar in the Special Criminal Case No.16 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant Kiranbhai Kanjibhai Rathod, resident of Savarkundla was working as a Security Guard in the Employees State Insurance Scheme Hospital, at Jamnagar and his younger brother Rakesh was also working as Security Guard in the same hospital and both the brothers were residing in the hospital. That, on 19.02.2006, the complainant Kiranbhai was at his home at Savarkundla, at that time, at about 11:00 PM, one security guard – Sukhabhai Kesrabhai Khant called the complainant at his home from Jamnagar and informed that he had come there for taking his charge. That, there was a scuffle between his brother – Rakesh and “Staff Brothers”- Jagdish Zadakava Gadhavi. That, Rakesh was beaten and both of them were driven out of the hospital. That, after through investigation, the Police has filed charge sheet before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamnagar. Since the matter is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions Judge, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of learned Special Judge, Jamnagar under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, Jamnagar acquitted the accused and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned APP Mr. Ronak Raval for the appellant-State has submitted that the learned Special Judge, has wrongly acquitted the accused – persons and thereby committed an error and therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Hardik A. Desai and learned advocate Mr. Aditya Khandelwal with learned advocate Mr. Vijay H. Nangesh for the respondent has submitted that there are so many contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses and therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the respondent– accused. They also submitted that this 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 accused, firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial Court.

6.2 Further, if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. Further, while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal, the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrive at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person, and therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perv