JUDGMENT :

ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI, J.

1. Heard learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Mihir Pathak for the respondents at length.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 07.03.2012 passed by the learned Special Judge, 4th Additional Sessions Court, Nadiad in the Special (SC/ST) Case No. 27 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 19.6.2011 at about 9:00 O’ Clock, while the accused-Maheshbhai Balabhai Parmar was going to Bayad in his rickshaw bearing Registration No. GJ-7-VV-1269, at that time, the complainant was coming from Bayad to Village-Zer in his Pick Up Car bearing Registration No. GJ-7-UU-1779 on the road of Village-Narshinhpur both had come to opposite each other. That, the complainant had asked the accused to back his rickshaw, accused got excited and started to give fist blows on chest of the complainant and rest of the accused by taking defence of the said accused had also come and also gave kick and fist blows by giving filthy abuses and insulting his caste in the public place and thereby humiliated him. That, after completion of the investigation the Police has filed charge sheet against the accused persons. Since, the accused-persons have 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, 4th Additional Sessions Court, Nadiad acquitted the accused and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned APP Ms. C.M. Shah for the State has drawn attention of this Court to the different depositions of the witnesses including charge framed against the accused-person, She also submitted that though the learned Sessions Judge, has acquitted the accused and thereby committed an error and therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Mihir Pathak for the respondents has vehemently and fervently argued that even material witnesses has not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to non parliamentary words are concerned. He also submitted that as such there is no injury except alleged ‘Galdapatu’ particularly, as such no scuffle between the complainant and accused-persons but incident had occurred due to dashing of both the vehicles at the narrow road.

5.1 Learned advocate for the respondents has placed reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of State of Gujarat vs. Gohil Babuji Punjaji and Others, 2022 Law Suit (Guj.) 6306, wherein, this Court has taken identical view in such case, that when the prosecution has failed to prove it’s case beyond reasonable doubt, in that case, the appeal cannot be allowed. He also submitted that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly observed and acquitted the accused and therefore there is no need of interference by this Court and the 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