JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Amit Joshi with learned advocate Ms. Rupal Thakore for the respondents at length.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 15.02.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Fast Track Court No.2 at Bharuch in the Special Atrocity Case No. 43 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 504 and Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant viz., Kantibhai Rathod, has filed a complaint on 18.11.2005 at about 1:30 P.M. That, while complainant was sitting at his house, at that time, the accused – Ashokbhai Sukabhai came with axe, the accused – Arvindbhai Sukabhai came with hockey and the accused Mukesh Sukhabhai Bhaliya came with stick and assaulted the complainant with weapons like axe, hockey and stick and caused injuries to the complainant. That, as per the case of the prosecution, the accused persons have also given filthy abuses to the complainant and told to withdraw the atrocity cases filed against the them. That, the accused Arvindbhai has inflicted blow with hockey on right hand writs of the complainant, the accused – Ashokbhai has inflicted reverse blow of axe on thigh, knee and hips and in the same way the accused Mukeshbhai has inflicted blow of stick on the thigh and hips. That, as per the case of the prosecution, as the complainant was unconscious, he was taken to the Civil Hospital, Bharuch and after getting the primary treatment in Civil Hospital, Bharuch, the wife of the complainant took the complainant to her sister’s house. That, the complainant was not conscious, therefore, she made a phone call to her father-in-law. That, the complainant has taken treatment as out door patient and he was not admitted as indoor patient. That, after through investigation, the Police has filed charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bharuch. That, 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, Fast track Court No.2, Bharuch under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge, Fast track Court No.2, Bharuch acquitted the accused and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the 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. Amit Joshi with learned advocate Ms. Rupal Thakore for the respondents has submitted that there are so many contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses and therefore, the learned Special Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents – accused. He 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 c