In acquittal appeals, the appellate court respects the presumption of innocence and should not overturn a trial court's judgment unless the view taken is unreasonable or perverse.

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 3^rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 4 of 2011 on 29.09.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504 , 506(2) 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 (hereinafter referred to the “Atrocities Act”) .

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] On 8-11-2010, at around 15:00 hours, Bhagwanbhai Kanjibhai Jadhav, the brother of the complainant Khodabhai Kanjibhai Jadhav had engaged the Chhakda rickshaw of Ashokbhai Vaja to go to Tagdi and the same Chakda rickshaw was also engaged by Badvantsinh Jesinghbhai Chavda to go to Tagdi. The relatives of Balvantsinh Jesingbhai were sitting in the Chhakda rickshaw and when it was brought for the complainant and others Balvantsinh Jesinghbhai Chavda told them that Ashokbhai Vaja would take them later but as Bhagwanbhai had to go by train to Ahmedabad and they had a verbal altercation at that time. Thereafter, on 11-11-2010, at around 8.30 am, when the complainant Khodabhai Kanjibhai Jadhav was returning after answering nature's call, all the accused met him near the school and hurled caste abuses and told him that he could not sit in the Chhakda rickshaw with them as it would not be befitting to them and abused him. That they all had sticks in their hands and the accused No. 2 gave him a blow on the ankle of the left leg, the accused No. 1 gave him a blow on the hand and the accused No. 3 gave him a blow on the right leg. The complainant shouted and his wife Kamlaben and his Sister-in-law Paluben Naranbhai came rushing and saved him. At that time the accused No. 2 also gave a blow with a stick to his wife Kamlaben but the complainant caught the stick with his hand and it did not hit his wife. The complainant filed the complaint on 12-11- 2010, under Sections 323 , 504 , 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) the Atrocities Act, which was registered at Dhanduka Police Station, II- C.R.No. 59 of 2010.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad (Rural) and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Special Judge (ATRO), Ahmedabad Rural as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 04 of 2011.

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 of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . A charge at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.4 to 6, 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 has produced the following oral evidences in support of their case.