The appellate court must exercise caution in appeals against acquittal, maintaining the presumption of innocence unless manifest illegality or compelling reasons warrant intervention.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. Pinto, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order passed by the learned Special Judge, City Civil & Special Judge, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special Case ( Atro) No. 22 of 2010 dated 25.01.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 323, 294(b) and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’).

1.1. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as he stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

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

2.1. On 28.06.2007, at around 5.30pm, the accused came to the house of the complainant Maheshbhai Babubhai Vaadodara and started abusing Vasantben, the wife of the complainant Maheshbhai Vaadodara as earlier there was a quarrel between them. The accused hurled caste slurs and slapped the complainant and threatened to kill the complainant, if he did not withdraw the complaints that he had filed earlier. The complainant Maheshbhai Babubhai Vaadodara filed the complaint at the Kagadapith Police Station under Section 323, 294(B), 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocities Act, which came to be registered at Kagadapith Police Station, II-C.R.No.3328 of 2007.

2.2. 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 and a charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.2 and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh.3, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution produced oral and documentary evidences in support of the case.

3.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has not considered the direct or indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in apperciating the seriousness and the gravity of the offences and should not have adopted a casual, callous and routine approach. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper and are perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside.

5. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the