Appellate courts must not interfere with acquittals unless trial decisions are perverse, respecting innocence presumption and allowing reasonable alternative conclusions.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 4 of 2008 on 01.04.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as " IPC " for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1881.

1.1. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:

2.1. The accused No. 2 Jayantibhai Mohanbhai Umrethia (Patel) had slapped Vijay the son of the complainant Vallabhbhai Veerabhai Makwana four times on his cheek and on 30-11-2007 between 19:00 to 19:15 hours, the complainant went to scold the accused about the incident with his son and at that time the accused abused the complainant and hurled caste slurs and the complainant filed the complaint before the Junagadh Taluka Police Station under Sections 323 , 504 , 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered at II-C.R.No. 3119 of 2007 on 1-12-2007.

2.2. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed chargesheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 4 of 2008.

2.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court, and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge at Exh. 1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 2 and 3, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution produced ten oral evidences and twenty documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 45, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case a