The appellate court upheld the presumption of innocence, stating that acquittals should not be disturbed unless the trial court's judgment is unreasonable.

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 learned 8^th Additional District Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 of 2009 on 24.04.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 342, 504 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (IPC) and Section 135 of the GUJARAT POLICE ACT and Section 3 (1)(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” as they stood in the rank and file 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 28-12-2008, the complainant Mukeshkumar Kantibhai Parmar was standing at the S.T.Depo at Karjan and at around 11.30 am, the accused came on motorcycle No.GJ-6-QQ-2062 and forcibly made the complainant to sit in the middle on the motorcycle and took him to the cabin of the accused No. 1 at Muval crossroads. The accused asked the complainant why he was supporting Salim Qasam Muslim and he was talking to his cousin-sister and the accused No. 1 took his belt and assaulted the complainant on his back and waist and both the accused assaulted the complainant, abused him and hurled caste-slurs against him. The complainant filed the complaint at the Karjan Police Station under Sections 342 , 504 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Karjan Police Station as I-C.R. No. 267 of 2008.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karjan and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kheda as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 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 Exh. 6 and Exh.7 respectively, 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 twelve and twelve documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, 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 ac