JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 03.12.2011, passed in Special Case No. 30 of 2008 by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Bhuj-Kachchh, recording the acquittal.

2. Facts in brief are that on 20.12.2006, when complainant – Khimjibhai Ramjibhai Dalit (Harijan) was going towards samajwadi, while passing through the home of the accused No. 1, she asked the complainant as to why he was staring at her to which, the complainant said to have not staring at her but at the samajwadi. Nonetheless, the accused No. 1 started shouting. Hearing the shouts, the accused No. 2 came out who called the accused No. 3 and inciting the accused No. 1, they told to kill the XXX (complainant). Hence, the accused No. 1 brought the wooden log and assaulted the complainant on his right shoulder and right hand finger and thereby, injured the complainant as also threatened him to kill. Thus, the accused committed the offences punishable under Section 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989 (Atrocity Act) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, for which, FIR came to be registered against them.

2.1 Upon FIR being filed, investigation started and the Investigating Officer recorded statements of several witnesses and produced certain documentary evidence and after completion of the investigation, Charge- sheet was filed against the accused for the offence in question. The case was committed to the Special Court and the learned Special Judge framed the Charge. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. Kirtidev R. Dave for the respondents - accused.

3.1 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. She 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 Additional Public Prosecutor 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 respondents – accused.

3.2 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt inasmuch as, PW-5 Khimjibhai Ramjibhai Dalit, Exh. 42 has supported the case of the prosecution in toto and narrated the case as per his complaint, Exh. 43. Further, drawing attention to the deposition of PW-6 Purbai Khimjibhai Dalit, Exh. 44, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that this witness had witnessed the incident in question and supported the case of the prosecution. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the medical evidence also supports the case of the prosecution, however, the learned Special Judge has not believed the same and accordingly, has committed a grave error in disbelieving the case of the prosecution.

3.3 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State submitted that despite sufficient material was there on record in support of the case of the prosecution and though the prosecution successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Judge has committed error in discarding the evidence on record and not believing the same.

3.4 It is submitted that the learned trial Judge has ignored the se