The appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's findings are plausible and supported by the evidence, maintaining the presumption of innocence.

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, 3^rd Fast Track Court, Deesa Camp at Diyodar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 130/2007 on 07.11.2007, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent extending benefit of doubt for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC 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 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 On 25.06.2007, at around 15.30 hours, the accused met the complainant - Ishwarbhai Pasabhai Dalit (Chauhan) at village Sanavia and asked him why he had given an application against him in the Tharad Police Station regarding a prohibition case and got angry and abused the complainant. The accused also hurled caste slurs and beat the complainant with fists and the complainant filed a complaint under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act before the Tharad Police Station which was registered at II – C.R. No. 3084 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 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tharad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Palanpur as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case No. 130/2007.

2.3 The accused was 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. 1 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 2, 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 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 or examine witnesses on their behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugn