An appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and can only interfere with acquittals where the trial court's reasoning is demonstrably flawed.

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, Surendranagar (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 47/2011 on 11.09.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 427, 504 and 114 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 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no.1 has expired and vide order of this Court dated 15.02.2023 the appeal qua the respondent no. 1 is disposed of as infructuous.

1.2 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 - Tejabhai Amrabhai Solanki was residing in Solanki Niwas, Nava Darwaja, Vadhwan and on 20.04.2011 at around 16.00 hours, the accused armed with a sword, spade and pipe came to the house of the complainant and removed the pipeline that was kept behind the house of the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint under Section 504, 427 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the B.P. Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which came to be registered as Vadhwan Police Station II – C.R. No. 3026 of 2011.

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, Vadhwan and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case No. 47/2011.

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. 5 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 6, 7, 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 10 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 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 respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perver