In criminal appeals, the presumption of innocence is upheld unless proven otherwise, and the appellate court must respect the trial court's findings if a reasonable view supports its decision.

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 Additional Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 71 of 2010 on 08.11.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 506(2) and 294B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 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 The complainant - Jignaben Somajibhai Balad and the accused were working as teachers in J.H. Sonawala High School, Mehemdabad since the year 2006. On 23.06.2010, at around 10.00 hours, the accused abused the complainant, hurled caste slurs against her and wrote on the blackboard abusive words against the complainant and threatened to kill her if she would stay in Mehemdabad and also told her that she would drive her away from the job. The complainant filed the complaint at the Mehemdabad Police Station under Sections 506(2), 294(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Mehemdabad Police Station II – C.R. No. 296 of 2010.

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, Mehemdabad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kheda as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No. 71 of 2010.

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. 2 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 3 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 12 witnesses and produced 20 documentary evidences on record in support of his 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 and 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 the accused from the charges levelled against him.

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, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondent. The case has been proved