The appellate court's power to review evidence in acquittal appeals is extensive but should be exercised cautiously, with due consideration to the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order in Special Case No. 20 of 2005 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhrangadhra dated 8.1.2008 recording the acquittal of the Respondents/Original Accused for the charges under Sections 504, 506(1) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”).

2. The facts of the case briefly are that complainant – Chaturbhai Motibhai, who is residing at Soldivala, lodged a complaint before the Dhrangdhra Taluka Police Station being CR No. II-23/05, against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 504, 506(2) of IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The prosecution case is that on 10.4.2005, at about 22:00 hours, accused persons took the soil from the field of complainant and when complainant saw it and denied for the same, the accused persons got provoked and gave filthy abuses to the complainant and also threatened him to kill. The accused persons insulted him by giving filthy abuses against his caste.

3. Upon such FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of as many as 17 witnesses and produced number of documentary evidence, and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences in question. The case was committed to the Sessions Court and the learned trial Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 8.1.2008, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

4. Heard, learned APP Mr. J.K.Shah for the appellant – State. Though served, none has remained present on behalf of the Respondents/Original Accused persons.

5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned APP submitted that the impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on presumptions and inferences and thereby, it is against the facts and the evidence on record. The learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has failed to appreciate the evidence on record in its true and proper perspective and thereby, has erred in recording the acquittal of the respondent – accused.

6. Learned APP Mr. J.K.Shah has referred to the judgment and order as well as the testimony of number of witnesses and also the documentary evidence. Learned APP has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice, hence the same deserves to be quashed and set aside by this Hon’ble Court. It is further contended that the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of learned Judge is based on inference not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law and that the learned Judge ought to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting Respondent with crime produced in this case. In spite of the fact, learned Judge without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case, straight way arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt for the alleged offences under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of IPC as well as Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. That the learned Judge has committed error in holding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned APP has further submitted that the learned Judge has committed error in giving undue weightage to minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witne