In acquittal appeals, presumption of innocence is reinforced, and the appellate court should only interfere with the acquittal if the trial court's ruling is perverse or unreasonable based on the presented 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 and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (SC/ST) Case No. 31/2014 on 31.12.2015, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the G.P. Act 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 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 On 24.08.2014, at around 06.30 pm, the accused entered into the house of the complainant – Sangeetaben - wife of Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela at village Nani Khadol and abused the complainant and the accused no. 1 slapped her two to three times. The complainant Sangeetaben came outside of her house and witness Govindbhai intervened and the accused hurled caste slurs against both of them. Her husband Deepakkumar asked them not to hurl abuses and the accused no. 2 assaulted Deepakkumar with a stick on the fingers of the right hand and right leg and caused him injuries. The complainant Sangeetaben - wife of Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela filed a complaint at the Mahudha Police Station under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the GP Act which came to be registered at Mahudha Police Station I - CR No. 88 of 2014.

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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheda at Nadiad 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 at Nadiad as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (SC/ST) Case No. 31/2014.

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. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 4, 5 and 6 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 11 witnesses and produced 8 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