In appeals against acquittal, a court may only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence; the presumption of innocence is paramount.

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 Additional Sessions Judge & Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court No. 2, Camp at Botad, (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 of 2007 on 29.12.2010, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence for the offence punishable under Sections 325 , 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC) and Sections 3 (i)(ix), 3(i) (xiii) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act, and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act, (hereinafter referred to as the 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. The complainant – Danabhai Virabhai Solanki had his agricultural land on the road going towards Samdhiyada and in that land, he had a 20 x 20 feet tank for water and the water was used for drinking as well as for the agriculture purpose. On 05.04.2007 at around 4 p.m., the complainant Danabhai Virabhai Solanki was going with his tractor and trailor filled with mud to his agricultural land and at that time, he met the accused at a distance of about 25 feet away from his agricultural land. The complainant told them that he knew that they were having bath in the water tank in his agricultural land and the water was being used for drinking and agriculture purpose, he asked them why were they having bath in that water. The accused No. 1 got angry and hurled caste abuses against him and told him that they would take bath in the tank again. The other accused also abused him and the accused No. 1 took a stick and hit it on the left hand and other parts of the body of the complainant and the others started beating the complainant with fists. As the complainant shouted, his son Bhupat was working in the field, came and released him from the assault of the accused persons and put him in the tractor and brought him home. Thereafter, his brother Budhabhai took him to Sonawala Government Hospital at Botad for treatment, from where, he was referred to the orthopedic hospital of Dr. Chhaya at Botad. As the accused had beat him, threatened to kill him and abused him, the complaint was filed by the complainant Danabhai Virabhai Solanki being I-C.R.No. 67 of 2007 at Botad Police Station, under Sections 325 , 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, Sections 3(i)(ix), 3(i) (xiii) of the Atrocities Act and Section 135 of Bombay Police Act.

2.2. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and had collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Botad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Bhavnagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 29 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.3 was framed against the accused a