An appellate court may review evidence in acquittal cases but should not interfere unless the trial court's decision is unreasonable or perverse, maintaining the presumption of innocence.

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 05.03.2008 in Sessions (Special Atrocity) Case No.183 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Main Fast Track Court, Gondal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504 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 37(1) and 135 of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘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 25.07.2007, the complainant was in the market near the Pan Cabin of his friend and was speaking to his friend about Airtel business and at about 12:45pm, the accused No.1 came and asked him why he had entered into a love marriage with his sister Shahenaz. The accused No.4 caught him by the collar and other relatives came one by one and caught him and about 9 to 10 persons assaulted and abused him, and hurled caste slurs. The complainant filed the complaint with Gondal Police Station under Sections 324, 323, 341, 504 and 114 of the IPC, Section 37(1) and 135 of the B.P.Act and 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, the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. was undertaken and the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions (Special Atrocity) Case No.183 of 2007.

2.3. 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.5 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 6 and 7, 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 14 documentary evidence in support of the case.

2.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.35, 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, 324, 341, 504 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 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 natural 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 erred in appreciating the direct and indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime. The learned Trial Court has erre