JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge), Gandhidham at Kutch (hereinafter be referred to as “the Trial Court) in Special Atrocity Case No.39 of 2008, whereby the accused – respondent herein came to be acquitted from the charge of the offences punishable under Sections 354, 452, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) and under Sections 3(1)(11) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred present criminal appeal under Section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Code”).

2. Briefly stated that on 30.04.2008, while the complainant was alone in her house and doing household work at that time accused had illegally entered into the house at about 2:30 in the afternoon and as she was going back side, accused suddenly caught hold her wrist. However, she tried to shout, but with another hand, accused had pressed her mouth and thereafter complainant had escaped from the accused but again the accused had caught hold her right hand wherein right hand side blouse was torn and as the husband of the complainant came there, accused had run away from the place.

3. On completion of the investigation, investigating agency recorded statements of the prosecution witnesses, drawn panchanama and collected relevant expert evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondent herein for the aforesaid offence, charge-sheet came to be filed in the concerned Court of JMFC. Since the case was exclusively triable by Sessions Court, concerned JMFC committed the case to the Sessions Court as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused - respondent herein for the aforesaid offence. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 9 prosecution witnesses and also produced documentary evidence before the learned trial Court

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court recorded further statements of respondent as provided under Section 313 of the Code, wherein, the respondent herein denied his involvement in the offence and stated that false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after appreciating evidence adduced by the prosecution, the trial Court acquitted the respondent herein from the charge of offence under Sections 354, 452, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(11) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989.

7. Heard Mr.R. C. Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat and Mr.A. R. Thacker, learned advocate for the respondent – accused and minutely examined the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced before the Trial Court discussed at great length in the impugned judgment and order itself.

8. Mr.Kodekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat has submitted that the Trial Court ought to have considered evidence of Prosecution Witness No.5 Smt. Naynaben w/o Sanjaybhai Naik, complainant, who has been examined at Exh.37. Witness has deposed in her testimony that while she was in her home in the noon hours, the accused suddenly came into her house and while she was going back of the house, accused had attacked on her wherein she tried to escape but accused caught hold her hand and thereby torn her blouse. Thereafter, accused again tried to catch her but as the husband of the complainant came, accused had run away from back side of the house. Witness has identified the torn blouse before the Court which was recovered. Witness has been cross-examined by the other side but nothing adverse which would render her deposition doubtful has come on record. He also submitte