In acquittal cases, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only intervene if the trial court's conclusions are unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Atro (Special) Case No. 24/2008 on 01.11.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents extending benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 114 of IPC, Section 135 of the BOMBAY POLICE ACT and Section 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short).

1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” 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 - Jashodaben alias Bhartiben - wife of Sureshbhai Dayabhai Rohit and the accused were neighbours and residing at village Anastu, Taluka Karjan. On 28.07.2007, at around 09.30 am, the accused were allowing water from the open place of their house to flow into the open space behind the house of the complainant and the complainant told them to restrict the flow of water but all the accused got together and insulted the complainant and abused her and used caste slurs against her. Later on, when the complainant went to buy vegetables, the accused ran after her and threatened to cut her to pieces and the accused nos. 1 and 2 were armed with swords at the time of the incident. The complainant filed the complaint at the Karjan Police Station under Sections 143 , 144, 147, 148, 504 of the IPC, Section 135 of the BP Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which was registered at Karjan Police Station I – C.R. No. 47 of 2007.

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, Karjan and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atro (Special) Case No. 24/2008.

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 was recorded at Exhs. 9, 10, 11 and 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 produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused.

ORAL EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE

2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statements of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were rec