In appeals against acquittal, conviction requires clear evidence; presumption of innocence is paramount, and acquittals should not be reversed without manifest illegality.

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 6^th (Ad-hoc) Special Judge (Atrocity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special Case (Atrocity) No.1 of 2012 dated 06.06.2014, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.P.Act) 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 respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they 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. The complainant Savitaben, wife of Rambhai Lakhabhai Bhajgotar, was residing at Dalitwas, village Meghpur, Taluka Veraval, and on 10.05.2011, while she was at her house and doing housework, at around 7.30pm, the accused no.2 had filled his sugarcane in one tractor which was being driven by one Sarmanbhai Naranbhai Ahir and was walking in front of the tractor, which was in his ownership. When the tractor passed by the house of the complainant, it damaged the front portion of the house of the complainant and she told the tractor driver to drive the tractor properly. The accused no.2 got angry and abused the complainant and telephoned his father, the accused no.1 and called him and the accsued no.1came with an axe, which was fitted in an iron pipe. Both the accused illegally trespassed into her house and the accused no.1 assaulted her and gave two blows on her back with the iron pipe that was fixed on the axe. The accused also caught her blouse and pulled her and dragged her, as a result of which, her blouse tore and as she shouted, her brother-in-law Govind Lakha came and intervened and saved her. The accused assaulted her brother-in-law Govind Lakha and hurled caste slurs against him and threatened to kill them, and thereafter, took the tractor and went away. The 108 ambulance was called and the complainant and her brother-in- law had gone for treatment at the Government Hospital, Veraval and the complainant Savitaben, wife of Rambhai Lakhabhai Bhajgotar filed the complaint at the Prabhaspatan Police Station under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, Section 135 of the B.P.Act and Section 3(1)(x)of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Prabhaspatan Police Station, I-CR No.45 of 2011.

2.2. 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 was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.6 and Exh.7 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 18 documentary evidences in support of the case.

3.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.58, 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