The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence and affirmed the trial court's acquittal due to insufficient evidence against the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Banaskantha at Palanpur (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 94 of 2009 on 30.08.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent-original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 354, 509 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”). The respondent is 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 was working as an Assistant Teacher in the Virampur Primary School and residing at Sujal Vas in Virampura and the accused was working as Teacher at Godiya Village and was residing two houses away from the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint on 10-06-2009, mainly stating that between 01-03-2009 and 06-01-2009, every morning between 09:30 AM to 10:00 AM, the accused used to enter into the house of the complainant in the absence of her husband and would make obscene gesture and make illegal demands from the complainant and threatened the complainant that if she would not surrender to him and if she would tell any-one about his visits, she and her children would not be safe. The accused also tried to molest her and as she was afraid, she proceeded on leave and went to her father’s place at Surat and informed her husband about the incident at Surat. That she also gave an application to the District Primary Education Officer and thereafter went to the Amirgadh Police Station and filed the complaint under Sections 452, 354, 509 and 506(2) of the IPC and Sections 3(1) (10) of the Atrocities Act which was registered as I-C.R.No. 49 of 2009 on 10-06-2009.

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 Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Amirgadh and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 94 of 2009.

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 at Exh. 5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 6, 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. 29, 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 o