The appellate court must uphold acquittals unless the prosecution's evidence conclusively proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt, affirming the presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 11/10/2002 passed by the learned Special Judge, Junagadh in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 30 of 2000 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Atrocities Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State has preferred the present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant of this case belongs to Scheduled Caste community and the accused are of other community. The incident in question took place on 4-9-1999 at 6 PM in the field of the complainant situated at village Lambora. The prosecution case is that the accused of this case came with their cattle and allowed them to graze in the field of the complainant, where there were standing crops. That as the complainant asked them to drive away the cattle from his field, the accused attacked him with weapons like iron pipe, axe and Dhariya and caused fracture on the skull, legs and hands and thereby committed the offence under Sections 307, 504 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The accused also uttered foul abuses relating to the caste of the complainant and thereby insulted him in the name of his caste. The accused have thus, committed the offences under Section 3(1)(x) and 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act.

2.2. On these facts, the complaint was filed with Mangrol Police Station. The Police after investigation charge-sheeted the accused for the aforesaid offences. After investigation, chargesheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Court. However, as the said Court lacks jurisdiction to try offence under Section 307 IPC and Atrocity Act, the case was committed to the Special Court and it was registered as Atrocity Sessions Case No. 30 of 2000 for trial. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the Special Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent-accused so as to obtain explanation/answer as provided under Section 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 a false case has been filed against him. After examining the evidence, witness testimonies and submissions from both sides, the learned Court below recorded the finding in favour of the respondent-accused acquitting him of the charges levelled against them.

3. We have heard learned APP for the appellant – State and minutely examined oral and documentary evidence adduced and produced before the learned Sessions Court concerned.

4. Mr. J K Shah, learned APP appearing for the appellant – State submits that the impugned order of acquittal is required to be interfered with as the evidence produced on record proves the involvement of the accused in the commission of crime in question. He has further submitted that the injuries caused to the injured by the accused were on the head, hands and on leg and thus the said injuries can be said to be serious in nature and if the complainant who received the said injuries is not given the treatment in time, then it would have caused his death. Thus, it is alleged that the accused persons inflicted these injuries upon the complainant with