An appellate court must defer to a trial court's acquittal when the trial's basis is reasonable, emphasizing the principle of presumption of innocence in criminal law.

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 Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 60 of 2008 on 04.01.2010, whereby, the learned trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) and 427 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”).

1.1 The respondent is 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 9-08-2008, at around 7.30 am, the complainant Pushpaben wife of Maganbhai Devabhai Chamar was washing vessels in front of her house and, at that time, the accused armed with sticks came and started quarrelling with her and asked her that why was her husband not allowing them to use the road in front of their house at night and assaulted her with the sticks. As she shouted, her brother-in-law Naranbhai Devabhai came to intervene and the accused No. 3 assaulted her brother-in-law Naranbhai Devabhai with a stick on his back and as they shouted, her husband Maganbhai Devabhai came to intervene and they tore the banyan of her husband Maganbhai. The accused hurled caste-slurs against them and threatened to kill them and the complainant filed the complaint at Chanasma Police Station under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2), 427 and 114 of IPC, 1860 and Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered as II – C.R.No.85 of 2008.

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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chanasma and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Patan as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (Atrocities) Case No. 60 of 2008.

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. 8 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 9 to 11, 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 fourteen oral evidences and fifteen documentary evidences to bring home 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 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box but stated that he wanted to examine defense witness. 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 all the charges 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 th