In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's decision 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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 29.01.2007 in Special Atrocity Case No.15 of 2000 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, Camp Mahuva (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocity Act’). The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. On 04.05.1999, the Additional Veterinary Officer from Rajkot had come to the house of Karimkhan Pathan for inquiry into the death of birds and as the complainant Arvindbhai Meghjibhai Vinjhuda came to know about the visit, he had gone to the house of Karimkhan Pathan to make representations about the death of birds allotted to him and told the officer that the birds were sick and no officer or doctor came, as a result of which, the birds died. The accused got angry and hurled caste abuses to the complainant and told the complainant to make representations, wherever, he wanted and threatened to kill the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint at Mahuva Police Station under sections 504, 506(2) of the IPC and section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered at I-C.R.No.173 of 1999 on 08.05.1999.

2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special Atrocity Case No.15 of 2000.

2.3. The accused was 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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.6 and the statements of the accused was recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 5 witnesses in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. That the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court of learned Judge is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The Trial Court has committed error in holding that the investigation of the present case has been carried out by the P.S.I who