IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate Court should be slow in reversing orders of acquittal, and there is a need for cogent and firm evidence to establish guilt. The interpretation of 'public view' under the Atrocity Act 1989 was emphasized.

JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 directed against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 1.10.2007 passed by Court of learned Special Judge, Panchmahals at Godhra in Special Case No. 16 of 2007 (Atrocity). By the said impugned judgment and order, the respondent nos. 1 and 2-original accused were acquitted for the offences alleged under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the “Atrocity Act 1989”) and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2. In nutshell the facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The complainant-Kaliben Chatrabhai Harijan had lodged a complaint before the Police Inspector, Santrampur Police Station, which was registered as CR-II No. 23 of 2006 for the offences alleged under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2.2. According to the case of the complainant on 19.02.2006 at about 8:00 hours she along with her family members and other labour workers had gone to the Bhatha which was owned by Maksudbhai Musalman. At around 8’O clock in the morning she and her brother viz. Mohanbhai Chatrabhai Harijan, her sister-Bhuriben Chatrabhai Harijan, Kalubhai Koyabhai Harijan and Prakashbhai Laxmanbhai were attending the work at Bhatha. At around 10’O clock she had started with cleaning of land, at that time, the accused viz. Patel Rajubhai Bhikhabhai and Prakashbhai Hirabhai Patel of Umariya village had come with their tractors to load bricks. In the process of cleaning the land with the bricks lying at the Bhatha, the accused persons had raised dispute with regard to blow of the dust and had picked up qurrel with the complainant and his brother as to why dust has been blown , to which, the complainant had responded by saying that why they are standing nearby.

2.3. With such response, both the accused had got enraged and has started dispute with the complainant by hurling abusive words. It is alleged in the complaint that the accused had insulted them by making remarks against their caste by saying “Bhangdao” and had started quarrel with them. It is further alleged in the complaint that the accused Rajubhai Patel had caught hold of her hair and had pushed her towards ground and has started giving kick and fist blow.

2.4. Upon hearing the scream of the complainant, the complainant’s mother and father had immediately came to the scene of the incident and had tried to intervene. At that stage, the accused Rajubhai Patel had inflicted brick blow on the left side of the ear of the father of the complainant resulting into oozing of the blood. The mother of the complainant was also assaulted by the accused Patel Prakashbhai with brick which was inflicted on her hand. Thus, the accused have alleged to have caused injuries because of the quarrel which had taken place. The other workers and the owner of the Bhatha Maksudbhai Muslam had ran towards the scene of offence. At that stage, the accused had left place by saying the words “Bhangdao.”

2.5. It is further stated that the complainant and her mother and other family members including Parbatbhai Bhemabhai had taken them to the Santrampur Government Hospital for the treatment of their father and thereafter she had visited the police station at Santrampur for registration of the FIR.

2.6. With such circumstances pointed out by the complainant, the FIR came to be registered with Santrampur Police Station vide CR-II-23 of 2006 for the offences alleged under Sections 323, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

3. Upon registration of the FIR, the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was the