An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's decision is perverse or lacks reasonable support from the evidence presented.

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 08.10.2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.18 of 2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), 3^rd Fast Track Court, Mehsana camp at Visnagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’)and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities 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 Raghunath Savabhai Parmar has filed the complaint stating that on 23.11.2008, he was at his home and at around 7:45 pm, there was a call on his mobile and his daughter Shilpa picked up the phone and the person from the opposite end gave caste slurs and asked his daughter where he was. That his daughter gave him the phone and the person from the opposite end told him that his men have closed his liquor and gambling dens in Aslali, Ahmedabad and he was to kill him and his gambling den was still functioning and if he had the guts to get it closed. When the complainant had asked him his name the person told that his name was Narendrakumar Manilal Patel @ Vaga Dada, residing at Aslali, Ahmedabad and he had called him from Mobile No.9825452506 at about 19:46 hours. The complainant filed the complaint being II-C.R.No.202 of 2008 registered with Unjha Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act on23.11.2008.

2.2. 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.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 6 witnesses and has produced 5 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at 21, 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, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 507 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice and the same is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption not permitted by law. The learned Trial Court has not considered the direct or indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in considering minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and the learned Tr