An acquittal by a trial court should not be overturned unless the findings are perverse, and the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

J. C. Doshi, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 8.10.2009 passed by the learned Presiding Officer and Addl. Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Deesa camp at Deodar in Special Case No.70 of 2008, whereby the respondent accused came to be acquitted for the offences under sections 323, 504, 506(2) of INDIAN PENAL CODE and under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act, the appellant – State has preferred present appeal under section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. The prosecution case in nutshell is that on 4.9.2007, the accused drove tractor to the area dominating by the people of SC/ST community and spoke filthy language to the complainant on his caste and also passed threat of dire consequences. The accused also beaten the complainant and thereby, committed aforestated offence.

3. In pursuance of the complainant lodged by the complainant with the concerned Police Station for the aforesaid offences, the investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, drawn panchnama of scene of offence, discovery and recovery of weapons and obtained FSL report etc. for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found sufficient material against the respondent accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned JMFC. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, Palanpur, learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.5 against the respondent accused for the aforesaid offences. The respondent accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 6 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, more particularly described in para 5 of the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him.

7. We have heard learned APP for the appellant – State, learned advocate Ms. Vaibhavi Raval for learned advocate for the respondent accused and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court.

8. In background of above, if we re-examine the evidence recorded during the trial, the prosecution examined complainant PW 1 Mr. Ratilal Nanji at Exh.10. In his deposition, he has categorically stated that he has not been beaten by the accused nor the accused has used filthy language to lower down his caste and therefore, he was declared turned hostile as he did not support the case of the prosecution. However, he supports the case to the effect that he has been derogated on the caste by speaking specific words. He has been thoroughly cross- examined. What could be noticed from his deposition that apart from he and his wife, he did not claim that any third party was present on the spot and in presence of third party, derogatory words are spoken to lower down his caste.

9. Witness Jivabhai Nanji - the real brother of the complainant, has been examined as PW2. He has categorically deposed that the accused was spe