The judgment emphasizes the need for compelling circumstances and the perversity of the lower court's decision to interfere with an order of acquittal, citing specific cases to support the legal principles discussed.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the respondent No.1 at length and though rule is served, none is present for the respondent No.2.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 7.9.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mahesana in the Special Atrocity Case No. 51 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Section 507 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988.

3. The brief facts of the case are that at noon on 26.9.2011, the accused made call on mobile phone of the complainant thrice and more and asked the complainant to return Rs.3500/- against Rs.1500/-, which he had given to Vishal, the son of the complainant. Not only that, the accused also threatened the complainant that his son would be kidnapped and done to death. Saying so the accused uttered filthy language relating to caste of the complainant that “Sala Dheda Tarathi thay Te Kari le Je” and humiliated him. That, the complaint was lodged with the Bavlu Police Station. That, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi. Since the case was exclusively Sessions Triable, the learned JMFC, Kadi committed the case to the learned Sessions Court, Mehsana. Since, the accused has not pleaded guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried and the prosecution therefore, led the evidence. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mahesana acquitted the accused- persons and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the State has submitted that the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mahesana has not properly appreciated the evidence and has acquitted the accused persons and thereby committed an error and therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

5. Learned advocate Mr. Yogendra Thakore for the respondent No.1 submitted that the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mahesana has rightly acquitted the accused persons and therefore, this appeal 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 perverse.

6.3 Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate Court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arri