IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court upheld the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence, confirming the double presumption of innocence for the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal is filed by the appellant – State of Gujarat under Section 378(1)(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the impugned judgment and order dated 10.07.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana (hereinafter be referred to as “the trial Court”) in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 11 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2), 341, 114 etc of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter be referred to as “the Atrocity Act”) whereby the trial Court has acquitted the accused for the alleged offence.

2. Brief facts of the present case, in nutshell, are as under:-

2.1 It is the case of the prosecution that on 08.06.2005 at about 10.30 hours, complainant came to Fuvara Stand, Mehsana and have taken three passengers of Village: Kherva and while he was going towards Kherva through Ambaji Parama Tower, the accused and one another person came with rickshaw bearing registration No.GJ-2-Y-9398 and they have given filthy abuses to the complainant and administered threat not to pass through the Tower, otherwise they would set him on fire.

2.2 On the basis of the said incident, the FIR came to be lodged for the aforesaid offences against the accused. The Investigating Officer has recorded statements of the witnesses and collected necessary evidence against the accused.

2.3 After completion of investigation, as the sufficient evidence was found, the police has filed the charge-sheet against all the accused before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class. As the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the concerned Court has committed the case under Section 209 of the Criminal Procedure Code to the Court of Sessions at Mehsana wherein it has been registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 11 of 2007.

2.4 The charge against the accused came to be framed by the trial Court on 25.04.2007 for the aforesaid offences against the accused and explained it to them, the accused denied having committed any offence. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and pleaded for trial and hence, the case was tried by the trial Court.

2.5 To prove the case, the prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses and also produced the following documentary evidence.

2.6 After closure of the evidence, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 has been recorded. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on records, the trial Court by impugned judgment and order has acquitted the accused from all the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order of acquittal the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this Appeal.

4. Heard Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat at length. It is relevant to note that as per the order dated 06.09.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the original complainant had joined as party respondent and issued notice to him. On returnable date, the concerned bailiff has filed report before this Court contending that the original complainant was expired. The death certificate of the complainant is on record along with the report of the bailiff. Though served, the respondents – accused have chosen not to appear before the Court and hence the appeal is decided in absence of the accused.

5. Ms.Jyoti Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant – State of Gujarat, while referring to the entire oral as well as documentary evidence, has assailed the impugned judgment and order and has submitted that the trial Court has not taken into consideration the evidence connecting the accused to the alleged offence in its proper perspective. She has submitted that the trial Court ought to have believed that the prosecution has been able to prove the charges levelled against the a