An appeal against acquittal should respect the presumption of innocence and not interfere if the acquittal is based on reasonable conclusions drawn from evidence.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant State under Section 3 78(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge, Patan (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 19 of 2012 on 25-09-2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 143 , 447, 146, 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section 3 (1)(4) (5)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as "Atrocities Act") .

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.

1.2 By an order of this Court dated 13-04-2023, the original complainant was joined as a party to the proceeding and a notice was issued through the concerned police station. As per the report of the learned Additional Session Judge, Patan, while serving the notice to the complainant by the Patan City "A" Division Police Station, it was found that the complainant was not present at that time but they found his mother - Kesarben Kanaiyalal Bhil and her statement has been recorded wherein, she has stated that her son had gone to attend a wedding and was not present but she would intimate him about the pendency of the proceedings before this Court. The statement of Hardikkumar Laxmanbhai Prajapati, a neighbour of the complainant has also been recorded and he too has stated that the complainant has gone for a wedding and he would inform him about the pendency of the proceedings before the High Court. The statements have been sent along with the report of ASI, Patan City "A" Division Police Station through the learned Additional Session Judge, Patan and even though the respondent No. 5 - Original Complainant has been duly served and the pendency of the proceedings before this Court is well within his knowledge, he has not appeared either in person or through an advocate to make any submissions

2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:-

2.1 The complainant - Mukeshkumar Kanaiyalal Bhil, a resident of Patan, was the owner of Survey No. 868/1 Paiki 2, situated in Patan and on 5-11-2011 at around 9.30 am, the accused illegally trespassed into the land and when the complainant asked them why they had entered into the land, they told him that the land was purchased by Bharatbhai Gandabhai Rawal and threatened to break his hands and legs. The complainant went away and thereafter once again at 17.00 Hrs. when the complainant went to the land, the accused No. 2 told him that he had purchased the land and threatened to kill him and all the accused tried to assault him. Witness Vipulkumar Dalpatram Thakkar intervened and as the accused had formed an unlawful assembly and hurled caste-slurs against the complainant and threatened to kill him, the complainant - Mukeshkumar Kanaiyalal Bhil filed a complaint at the Patan City "A" Division Police Station under Sections 143 , 447, 146 and 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered as Patan City "A" Division Police Station I -C.R.No.128 of 2007.

2.2 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 necessary papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge at Exh.4 was framed against