The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and not overturn acquittals unless the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

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 Special (ATRO) Judge, Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 36 of 2007 on 22-11-2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “ IPC ”) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1885 (hereafter referred to as "Atrocities Act".).

1.1 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 On 05/02/2007 at around 10:00 am, the complainant - Govindbhai Hamirbhai Parmar (Harijan-Chamar), his wife Ranjan, Natwarbhai Kantibhai Parmar, Bhavanbhai Somabhai Parmar, were standing at the bus-stand at around 10:15am and Naranbhai Becharbhai came from the opposite side and as the complainant had to take the wages for the labour contract, he demanded the same from him and Naranbhai Becharbhai got angry and abused the complainant and used the caste-slurs and threatened to cut him into pieces and kill him. The accused also tried to physically assault the complainant and at that time, his wife Ranjanben, Natwarbhai Kantibhai Parmar, Bhavanbhai Somabhai Parmar and Ambarji Govaji Thakor of Dhodiya village intervened and released him from the hold of Naranbhai Bechardas Patel. That the complainant Govindbhai Hamirbhai Parmar (Harijan-Chamar) had taken a labour contract of Dhodiya village from the Sarpanch Naranbhai Bechardas Patel and he was paid some amount and an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- was outstanding and as the complainant demanded for the same, the incident has occurred. The complainant filed the complaint at Kadi Police Station under Sections 323, 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act and which was registered as I-C.R.No.6 of 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 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kadi and as the said offences against the accused were 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. 36 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. A charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 3, wherein, the accused denied 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