In acquittal appeals, the burden lies on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and acquittals are upheld when evidence is insufficient to support charges.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 4^th Additional Special Judge, Rajkot (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case (Atro) No. 2/2010 on 29.07.2017, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 352 and 504 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short).

1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he 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 The complainant - Sujataben wife of Priyankarbhai Shakiya and the accused were neighbours and the accused wanted to place a door in the wall facing the house of the complainant and the officers of the Municipal Corporation did not permit the accused to place the door and the accused had a doubt that the complainant had informed the officers of the Municipal Corporation about the door and hence, on 17.12.2009 between 17.00 hours and 18.00 hours, the accused went to the house of the complainant and caught her neck, pulled her gown, hurled caste slurs against her and took a stone in his hand and attempted to hit the complainant with the stone. The complainant filed the complaint at the Malaviyanagar Police Station, Rajkot City under Section 323 , 352 and 504 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act which came to be registered as Rajkot city Malaviyanagar Police Station I – C.R. No. 182 of 2009.

2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge- sheet came to be filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajkot and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case (Atro) No. 2/2010.

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. A charge at Exh. 11 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 12, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution examined 14 witnesses and produced 14 documentary evidences on record in support of their case. After the closing pursis was filed by learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded, wherein, the accused denied the evidence of the prosecution and refused to step into the witness box but examined 2 witnesses in support of his case. 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the le