In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence prevails, and the appellate court must respect the Trial Court's findings if a plausible view is supported by evidence.

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 Court, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Atrocity Sessions Case No. 7/2013 on 27.10.2016, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the G.P. Act and Section 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 The complainant - Dayabhai Madhabhai Solanki had taken the work of plastering at the house of Girdharbhai Thobanbhai and on 03.01.2013 at about 15.00 hours when the complainant, his wife and brother were doing the work of plaster at the house of Girdharbhai Thobanbhai, the accused came and asked them why they were doing the work at that place. The accused also asked them why he had not given his vote to him in the elections and abused the complainant and took sticks and iron pipes and assaulted the complainant, his wife and his younger brother. The accused also hurled caste slurs and the complainant filed the complaint at the Manavadar Police Station under Section 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the B.P. Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Manavadar Police Station II – C.R. No. 3001/2013.

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, Manavadar and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atrocity Sessions Case No. 7/2013.

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. 1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 2, 3 and 4 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 15 witnesses and produced 18 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 a