The main legal point established in the judgment is the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused in cases of acquittal, the need for clear and compelling evidence of guilt, and the reluctance of the appellate court to interfere unless there are substantial reasons to do so.

JUDGMENT :

RAJENDRA M. SAREEN, J.

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 11.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 10 of 2010 acquitting the respondent Nos. 1 to 3-original accused Nos. 1 to 3 from the offence punishable under sections 447, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(10) 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:

The complainant-Mafabhai Rakhabhai Meghval (Harijan) lodged the complaint that on 19.7.2009 at about 12 O’clock when he was in was in his agricultural field, Rabari Mafabhai Rugnathbhai, Mevabhai Pujabhai Rabari came with sticks and Lakhabhai Rugnathbhai Rabari came with axe with materials to construct shed and they started to construct a shed near the well and therefore, the complainant asked them that why they are constructing shed in his field and in reply they said that before four years they have purchased his land from his by way of registered sale deed at the consideration of Rs. 3 Lacs and you have nothing to do. At that time the complainant said that he has worked with him in the agricultural field as partner and his Rs. 3 Lacs is due to be paid by them and for which even on a writing his thumb impression is obtained on the stamp paper of Rs. 20/- and at that time, all the three got excited and Mafabhai Rugnathbhai took the axe which was lying in the bullock cart and came to beat the complainant and hence due to fear, the complainant left the place and at that time, all the three said that “Sala Dhedha Kanda” if he enters in the field, they will kill him and will bury him. It is the case of the complainant that thereafter he went to his house and thereafter, he his sons Ramesh and Prakash and wives of his sons had gone to the aforesaid three persons in the field to ask them not to construct the shed and at that time, all the three accused again gave abuses and ran behind them to beat them. Hence, the complainant has lodged the complaint.

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 to 3-accused Nos.1 to 3, 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 Special (Atrocity) Case No. 10 of 2010. Thereafter, Charge was framed against the accused for the offence punishable under sections 447, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under section 3(1)(10) 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 judgment and order of acquittal.

4. Heard Ms. C.M. Shah, learned APP for the State and Ms. Rhea Choksi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Tejas Barot, learned advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

5. Mr. C.M. Shah, learned APP has vehemently submitted that the Ses