The appellate court should respect the presumption of innocence in acquittals and only interfere if the trial court's verdict lacks reasonable foundation.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Atrocity Case No. 7/2010 on 09.12.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the BP Act and Sections 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short).

1.1 The respondents are 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 27.12.2008 at around 02.30 am, the complainant - Bhurabhai Lavjibhai Senma was sleeping at his residence in Indiranagar at Santhal village and the accused no. 1 came armed with a sickle and the accused nos. 2 and 3 came armed with sticks and knocked the door of the house of the complainant and called the complainant outside of his house. They took him near the road and asked him why he was filing false cases against them and threatened to kill him. The accused also hurled caste slurs and the complainant filed the complaint at the Santhal Police Station under Sections 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the BP Act which came to be registered at Santhal Police Station II – C.R. No. 81/2008.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Mehsana as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 7/2010

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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 6, 7 and 8 respectively, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record.

2.4 The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 14 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. 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 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 impugned judgment 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 the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, n