IMPORTANT POINT
In acquittal appeals, the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; mere contradictions in witness testimonies do not suffice to overturn a trial court's acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. The present appeal is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat (original complainant) under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.”) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30/06/2010 passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “the trial court”) in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 16 of 2009, whereby, the learned Special Judge has acquitted the original accused respondents herein for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 188 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code (for short “the IPC”) read with the provisions of Section 3(1)(5)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1981 (for short “the Atrocities Act”).

1.1 At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent No. 5-Maganbhai Chaturbhai Jadav (original complainant), was joined as party respondent in the present proceedings pursuant to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and notice was also issued to Maganbhai Chaturbhai Jadav, however, the respondent No. 5 Maganbhai Chaturbhai Jadav could not be served with the notice of this Court as the same returned with an endorsement that the original complainant passed away on 23/04/2022. The copy of death certificate issued by the competent authority is produced on record alongwith the report of the Bailiff of the trial court.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

2.1 The complainant Maganbhai Chaturbhai Jadav, belonged to the Scheduled Castes and was living at Rajkot with his family and running a rickshaw. That, on 17/12/2008, at about 7:00 P.M. one farm of complainant’s caste was forcefully took by the Bharwad Community, therefore, the complainant went there, where the other people gathered and told that the ownership of the said farm was of their community. Therefore, the accused got angry on complainant and gave filthy abuses and the complainant told them do not give abuses. Therefore, the accused nos. 1 & 2 gave kick and panch blows and other two accused took the stick and iron pipe and inflicted blows on the complainant. Thereafter, on hearing the shout of the complainant, wife of complainant, son, daughter and his son-in-law came there and rescued him from the accused. Thereafter, the accused persons went away from there. Therefore, the complainant filed a complain before Malaviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 188 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(5) (10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989.

2.2 On the basis of the said complaint, investigation was initiated and as there was sufficient evidence against the present respondents-accused, charge sheet was filed against them before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot. As the offences committed by the accused persons were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions as per the provisions of 209 of Cr.P.C. the learned Judge committed the case to the Court of Sessions and the case was transferred and placed for trial before the learned Special Sessions Judge, Rajkot, which was numbered as Atrocity Sessions Case No. 16 of 2009. Thereafter, charge was framed at Exh.3 by the learned Special Sessions Judge against the respondents-accused for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 188 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1) (5)(10) of the Atrocity Act, 1989. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. The prosecution therefore, laid evidence.

2.3 In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses as well as produced several documentary evidences on the record of the case. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Special Sessions Judge, Rajkot, acquitted all the respondents accused from the charges levelled against them.

2.4 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the Judgment and Order of acquitta