The judgment underscores the principle of presumption of innocence, the requirement for clear and convincing evidence to establish guilt, and the reluctance to disturb a finding of acquittal without substantial and compelling reasons.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 11/11/2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Sessions Case No.30 of 2009 acquitting the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – original accused Nos.1 and 2 from the offence punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(11) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity” Act).

2. The crux of the case of the prosecution is as under:- On 18/11/2007 while the complainant was standing in front of her house, at that time at about 7.30 PM, both the accused gathered with in front of her house and started to tease her and abusing her and upon asked them to go away, they got furious and insulted her caste by humiliating in public place and administered threat to her. However, one Virabhai Parabatbhai who intervened and rescued her from further beating as the accused persons were giving kick and fist blows to the complainant. Thus, the accused gave abuses and insulted the complainant and in furtherance gave fist blows and also caused injuries and humiliated her in public place. Therefore, the complainant has lodged the complaint for the aforesaid offence.

3. On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was started, statement of witnesses were recorded, prepared the panchnama of the scene of offence, arrested the accused and after through investigation, as there was sufficient evidence against the respondent Nos.1 and 2 – accused Nos.1 and 2, Chargesheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence committed by the accused persons was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of Section 209 of Criminal Procedure Code, the learned Magistrate was pleased to commit the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial in the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, which has been numbered as Sessions Case No.30 of 2009. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(11) of Atrocity Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the Charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, laid evidence, oral as well as documentary. After the evidence was over, Further Statement of the accused were recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and arguments were heard. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the accused for the charges levelled against them. Hence, the appellant - State of Gujarat has preferred the present Criminal Appeal challenging the judgement and order of acquittal.

4. Heard Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State and Mr.Brijesh Ramanuj, learned advocate for Mr.Y.J. Patel, learned advocate for the respondents - accused.

5. Ms.C.M. Shah, learned APP has vehemently submitted that the Sessions Court has committed a grave error in not believing the deposition of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. She has further submitted that the Sessions Court has erred in acquitting the respondents - accused from the charges levelled against them. She has further argued that the prosecution has proved that the respondents have committed offence under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(11) of Atrocity Act. She has further argued that Sessions Court has acquitted the respondents merely on some minor contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. She has further argued that the trial court has erred in not believing the evidence of the investigating officer who had no reason to implicate the accused falsely in the case. She has further argued that the offence punishable under sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian