The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's reasonable conclusions, intervening only if the acquittal is perverse or illegal.

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 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special (ATRO) Judge & 8^th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 61 of 2009 on 21.09.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 504, 506(2) read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 3(1)(4)(5)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 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] On 23.06.2007 at around 11:00 a.m., the accused No. 1 was armed with a firearm, the accused No. 2 with a sword and the accused No. 3 was armed with a Dhariya and they all illegally trespassed into the field of the complainant situated in the outskirts of Rajoda Village bearing survey No. 100, Block No.84 and brought the tractor of the accused No. 1 and hurled caste slurs and abuses to the complainant and threatened to break his legs if they would enter into the field. The accused also threatened to kill the complainant and the complainant filed the complaint under Sections 447, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(4)(5)(10) of the Atrocities Act at Dholka Police Station, which was registered at I-C.R.No. 97 of 2007.

2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholka and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 61 of 2009.

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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 6 to 8, 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 nine oral evidences and seven documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.31, 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 the charge leveled against them.

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 supported the case of the pros