JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the appellant – State at length. Though rule is served upon the respondent but none is present for the respondent. Since the matter is of the year 2010, the Court has proceeded with the matter.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 23.03.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Deesa camp at Diodar, in the Special Case No. 111 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 20.12.2008 at about 18:15 hours, at village – Valadar, the present accused by keeping grudge against the complainant- Popatbhai Nagjibhai Dalit as he was walking without any garment on mouth, the accused abused against his mother and sister and also caused hurt to him intentionally by inflicting iron pipe blow on his back side and on the left leg and also insulted him in public by uttering words against his caste and therefore the complaint was lodged by the complainant. That, after completion of the investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against the accused before the learned JMFC, Tharad. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the matter was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Deesa camp at Diodar and the case was registered as Special Case No. 111 of 2009. 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 Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Deesa camp at Diodar acquitted the accused and therefore, the State has preferred this appeal.

4. Learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the State has submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, has acquitted the accused 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 is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse