The appellate court affirmed the trial court's acquittal, emphasizing the necessity of substantial evidence for conviction and the presumption of innocence for 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 Additional Sessions Judge, 2^nd Fast Track Judge, Mahesana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 44 of 2007 on 27.11.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 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”).

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 on 27th March 2007 at around 07:00 hours in Sanjay Nagar Society, Ucharpi Road, Mahesana, the complainant scolded the accused as they had burnt the hedge, which belonged to the complainant at 05:00 hours and the accused hurled cast abuses on the complainant and threatened to kill him and abused him, and hence the complainant filed the complaint on 27th March 2007 at Mehsana Police Station under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered at II –C.R.No. 189 of 2007 on 27th March, 2007.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahesana and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Mahesana as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 44 of 2007.

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 and a charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 3 to 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. 19, 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 of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against him.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have