An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's conclusions are 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 03.10.2013 in Special Case - Atro. No. 09 of 2012 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Anand (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 447, 506(2) and 114 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 respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they 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. On 27.10.2011, a cow belonging to some person of the Rabari community had given birth to a calf in front of the stable of the complainant and the complainant had informed them about the same, but they did not come till 17:45 hours. That when the accused came to the stable, the complainant Jagdishbhai Ganeshbhai Rohit asked them why they had come so late and all the accused got angry and abused the complainant and hurled caste abuses and assaulted him with fist and threatened to kill him. The complaint was filed by the complainant at the Borsad Town Police Station under section 323, 504, 447, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, which was registered at Borsad Town Police Station as I-C.R. No.130 of 2011.

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 therefore, 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 Case - Atro. No. 09 of 2012.

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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.4 to 7 respectively, 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 9 witnesses and has produced 12 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.48, 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, 504, 447, 506(2) and 114 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 c