An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant- original complainant under Section 14-A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as Atrocities Act) against the judgement and order of acquittal passed on 03/10/2023 by the learned Special Judge (ATRO) & 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Morbi (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 12 of 2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act .

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file 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 That the complainant Jerambhai @ Jerajbhai Karsanbhai Parmar has filed the complaint on 26-02-2016 at 23:30 Hrs., stating that at around 07:30 pm, on the same day, he was at the food grain shop of Hasubhai Savjibhai Chotaliya in his village and at that time, the accused No. 2 Ruksanaben D/o Valimohamad Salemanbhai Theba came and had a verbal atercation with him and told him that he had purchased a stamp paper of her name and had cheated her of Rs.3,00,000/- and abused him and took her slipper and beat him on the head and the other accused Nos. 1 , 3 and 4 also abetted each other and threatened to kill him. The complainant filed the complaint on 26-02-2016 at Morbi Taluka Police Station under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(5-a) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered as II-C.R.No.3084 of 2016.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Morbi and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Morbi as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 12 of 2016.

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. A charge at Exh. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 to 10 respectively, 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 the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2.5 After the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 56, 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