The presumption of innocence, the reluctance to interfere with acquittal, and the need for compelling circumstances to justify interference with an order of acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard learned APP Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant-State at length. None is present for the respondents. Since the matter is of the year 2010, the Court has proceed with the matter.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 26.02.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in the Special Atrocity Case No. 31 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 506(2) 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. Mukeshbhai Nathabhai Solanki is residing at Jalila along with his family and dong agricultural work. That, land bearing survey No. 252 was allotted to the family of the complainant by the State 70 years ago, which is cultivated by them. That, the land of the respondents-accused is adjacent to his land. That, the respondents-accused used to pass from the field of the complainant, but the complainant never raised any objection. That, on 19.06.2007, the complainant was informed by one Ramjibhai Arjanbhai Limbaid that the respondent-accused were plying JCB in his field and, hence, the complainant and his brother viz. Dipakbhai reached to their field and saw that the respondents-accused were making road in their field and hence, the complainant reprimanded them. As a result of which, the respondents-accused got angered and started abusing them and threatened to kill them and also chased to beat them. Hence, the complainant and his brother left the place of offence because of fear. Thereby, the respondents-accused have committed offences. Since the matter is exclusively triable by the Court of Special Judge, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Special Judge, Ahmedabad under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) 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. 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:

5.1 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.

5.2 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.

5.3 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