JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Shailesh Sharma for the respondents at length.

2. The State has filed this acquittal appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 11.6.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar in the Special Case No. 26 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 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 29.05.2008 at about 5:00 p.m., the complainant Karshanbhai Naranbhai Pardhi, resident of village: Pithad, was sitting with the accused at the Bus Stand of Village: Pithad, at that time, the complainant requested to the accused persons not to take sand from the lease land granted to his son Muljibhai and therefore, the accused persons got excited and gave filthy abuses relating to the caste of the complainant in public at large and also administered threat to cause death of the complainant and thereby committed the offence. That after the investigation, a charge sheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jodia. Since the case was exclusively triable by the learned Sessions Judge and therefore, the matter was committed to the learned Special Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 26 of 2008. 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 and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar 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 Special Judge, has acquitted the accused and thereby committed an error and therefore, this appeal may be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Shailesh Sharma for the respondents has submitted that the learned Special 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 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