JUDGMENT :

1. This Appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the judgment and order dated 15.06.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Dahod in Special Atrocity Case No.4 of 2006 whereby the learned Special Judge has acquitted the respondents – original accused from the charges levelled against them for the offences under Sections 452, 427, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the IPC’) and under sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 (the Atrocity Act’).

2. The prosecution case, in nutshell, is that on 13.12.2004, when complainant Narsinhbhai Manabhai Bhabhor was at his workplace, the respondent No.1, who resided on the first floor of the work place, threw garbage and dirty water from above, from which dirty water was fall on complainant. Therefore, complainant has scolded Shirinben. After that, respondent No.1 – Shirinben and her son respondent No.2 – Mustufa abused the complainant in filthy language relating to his caste and insulted the complainant in public.

2.1. It is further the case of the prosecution that after abusing the complainant, respondent No.3 – Mustafa has caught hold of shirt of the complainant and torn off the shirt and respondent No.3 - Mahejbin has pushed away the complainant and administered a threat to cause fracture to his legs. Because of such incident, complainant filed a complaint before the Dahod Town Police Station, which was registered as C.R. No. I – 197 of 2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 452, 427, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989.

2.3. Pursuant to the FIR, investigation started and chargesheet has been filed. As the case was triable by the Special Court, the case was committed to the Special Court, Dahod and the same was numbered as Special Case No.4 of 2006.

2.4. The Special Court, after appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the respondents herein – original accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgement and order of acquittal, present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State.

3. Heard learned APP Mr. R. C. Kodekar for the appellant – State being prosecuting agency and learned advocate Mr.M. A. Kharadi for the respondents – original accused. Perused the evidence on record so also the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

3.1 Learned APP Mr.R.C. Kodekar for the appellant State has vehemently argued that the Special Court has not properly appreciated oral as well as documentary evidence on record of the case and thereby, committed an error in acquitting the respondents – accused.

3.2 It is also argued by Mr.Kodekar that the prosecution has proved that the respondent has intentionally insulted the complainant against his caste to humiliate him in public and torn off his shirt, and also threatened him to cause fracture to his legs.

3.3 It is further argued that so far as the evidence of complainant is concerned, he has fully supported the complaint at Exh.10. As such the trial court committed an error in holding that evidence of the complainant is not corroborating with the complaint at Exh.10.

3.4 It is further argued that the trial court has erred in not believing the evidence of the prosecution witness Saifuddin Yusufali Kaydwavala, which is at Exh.16, wherein such witness has stated that on the date of incident, he was out for some personal work. However, on his arrival, he saw that all the three accused persons had entered in the shop and giving filthy abuses to the complainant and on inquiry from the complainant, the complainant narrated him the whole incident. Thus, as per the evidence of this prosecution witness, he has fully supported the case of the prosecution and version of the complainant. However, the trial Court has hold that this witness was not present at the time of incident and