An appellate court may review evidence in acquittal appeals but must respect the presumption of innocence and uphold acquittals unless clear errors or compelling reasons exist.

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 27.05.2010 in Atrocity Cri. Case No.30 of 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Court No.18 Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(2) 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 rank and file 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. The complainant Jaynarayanbhai Bhajanrao Mahar and the accused are residing in the same area and on 09.08.2003 at about 2:00pm, the complainant was passing in front of the house of the accused and as there was a rain fall, the passage in front of the house of the accused was full of mud and had water logging and the complainant climbed on to the “Otla” of the accused to pass by, and at that time, the accused got angry and abused the complainant and hurled caste abuses and caught hold neck of the complainant and beat him with fists. As there was a hue and cry, a mob gathered and the complainant was saved by the members of the mob. The complainant filed a private complaint before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and after inquiry, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No,7, registered the complaint of the complainant as Criminal Case No.4530 of 2003. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and the committal order was pased on 06.09.2008 and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Act No.30 of 2008 before the City Sessions Court, Ahmedabad.

2.2. 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 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.3 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.4, 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 4 witnesses and has produced one documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.15, 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 323, 294(2) 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. The Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused through there are ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offences registered against them. The Trial Court has also committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that though the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and there are no material contradictions, the Trial Court has acquitted the accused. The impugned judgment and or