In appeals against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and interference is warranted only when the trial court's judgment is unreasonable or perverse.

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 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 114/2010 on 22.07.2013, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 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 Rajiben - widow of Chamanbhai Dharmabhai Valmiki had about 8 vighas of agricultural land in joint ownership situated in the outskirts of village Motakapara and the land was mortgaged to the accused by her husband thrice for the amounts of Rs. 24000/-, Rs. 27000/- and Rs. 28000/- and in all an amount of Rs. 79000/- was taken as mortgage amount. As per the agreement, the mortgage was to be released whenever the amount was paid and on 20.08.2009, the complainant - Rajiben Chamanbhai Valmiki and her brother-in-law – Khemabhai were going to return the mortgage amount to the accused. When they approached the accused, the accused got angry and refused to take the amount and abused the complainant and her brother-in-law Khemabhai and hurled caste slurs against them. The complainant filed a complaint at the Bhildi Police Station under Sections 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered at Bhildi Police Station I – C.R. No. 3066 of 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Deesa and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Deesa as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case No. 114/2010.

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. 7 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 8 and 9 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 8 witnesses and produced 6 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