In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene if the trial court's decision is perverse or unsupported by evidence.

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 28.10.2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.23 of 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 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’) and Section 135 of the B.P.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 29.10.2008 at around 2:00pm, the complainant Popatbhai Kanjibhai Senma residing at Narsinhpura came to the accused No.1 and demanded for an amount of compensation for the damage caused to the cycle of his son Dhaval, as while the accused No.1 was reversing his tractor, the cycle was crushed below the tractor, and at that time, the accused No.1 took a stick and hit it on the head of the complainant. The complainant fell down and the accused No.2 had also a stick in his hand and gave a stick blow on the back of the complainant. That both the accused beat the complainant with their sticks and threatened to kill the complainant and hurled abuses and caste slurs on the complainant and the complainant filed the complaint with Kadi Police Station which was registered at II-C.R.No.219 of 2008 under Section 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act.

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 Atrocity Case No. 23 of 2009.

2.2. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the 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 Trial Court at Exh.6 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 7 and 8, 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 11 witnesses and has produced 8 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.22, 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 Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the B.P.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. The Trial Court has erred in appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution in its true spirit and straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The Trial Cou