IMPORTANT POINT
The appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal unless it finds clear illegality or perversity in the trial court's judgment, reaffirming the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J.

1. Present Appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Atrocity) (“Special Court” for short) in Atrocity Case No. 13 of 2009, whereby the Special Court has acquitted the respondent accused from the charges levelled against her under Sections 323, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (“Atrocity Act” for short).

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.10.2007 at about 8.00 hrs. some hot altercation took place between the complainant and accused and because of such altercation, the present respondent got exited and gave kick and fist blows on the stomach of the complainant/informant-Manjulaben Amratbhai Parmar and insulted her by her caste and community. In such circumstances, the daughter of informant tried to intercept and intervene in the quarrel. Due to injury, the informant felt unconscious and thereafter, she was taken to the Civil Hospital whereby, she was examined and treated by the doctor. Thereafter, complaint came to be lodged against respondent accused for an offence under Sections 323, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The information was recorded at Madhavpura Police Station being C.R. No. II-3262 of 2007. Since the offence is under the Special Act, the offence was investigated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police L-Division.

2.1 Thereafter, Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses, drew the panchnama of the place of occurrence and also collected relevant materials and the chargesheet was submitted in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 2. The same was registered as Criminal Case No. 4807 of 2007.

2.2 Since the case is exclusively triable by the court of sessions i.e. Special Court therefore, after completion the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the court of sessions i.e. Special Court and the same was registered as Atrocity Case No. 13 of 2009.

2.3 The Special Court has framed the charges against the accused. The accused pleaded no guilty and therefore, the Court had issued a summons. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses and also produced as many as five documentary evidence referred in paragraph No. 8 of the impugned judgment and order.

2.4 After considering oral as well as documentary evidence and after considering the depositions of the witnesses and after considering the 313 statement of the accused, the Special Court has acquitted present respondent accused from the charges levelled against her, since the prosecution measurably failed to establish the charge against the present respondent.

2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Court, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred present Appeal.

3. The Appeal came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 26.9.2011 and in response thereto the Court had issued a bailable warrant against respondent No. 1.

3.1 During the pendency of the Appeal, the subsequent amendment came into force in Section 15A(5) of the Atrocity Act and therefore, the Court had permitted the learned APP to join the original complainant as party respondent No. 2 and issued notice vide order dated 26.9.2023. When the notice was issued by the Court to the original complainant, it was found that the original complainant was passed away. Even though, the bailable warrant served upon respondent No. 1-original accused has chosen not to remain present before the Court nor any alternative arrangement is made. Therefore, the Court at the time of hearing, requested learned Counsel Mr. Raxit Dholakia, to assist the Court on behalf of respondent No. 1 which he has accepted.

4