An appellate court respects trial court's acquittal unless the findings are unreasonable; presumption of innocence remains strong post-acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1] This appeal has been filed by the appellant - State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Narmada (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 1 of 2013 on 26.07.2013, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504, and 427 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short), Section Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act.

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 Hardikbhai Valusingh Vasava had taken his motorcycle No. GJ-22-B-2207 on 20.09.2012 at around 6 p.m. and had gone from his house to the market. He completed his work and was returning home and at around 23:00 Hrs., while he was on the road of Sharma complex, Near Santosh Crossroads, Rajpipla, the accused came with his motorcycle in front of the motorcycle of the complainant and when the complainant halted his motorcycle, he abused him and took out a knife from his pocket and hit the same on the right hand wrist of the accused and on the left side back shoulder of the complainant and also caused damage to the motorcycle of the complainant. At that time Sandeepbhai Kishorebhai Vasava and Harshiddhbhai - the brother of the complainant came and took him to the Government Hospital at Rajpipla and the complainant filed the complaint at Narmada Police Station under Sections 323 , 504 and 427 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act" and Section 135 of the G.P.Act., which was registered as Narmada Police Station being I – C.R.No. 147 of 2012.

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, Rajpipla and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Narmada as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (Atrocities) Case No. 1 of 2013.

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. 4 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 5, 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 thirteen oral evidences and twenty four documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 83, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was 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 his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. 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 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