In acquittal appeals, the presumption of innocence prevails, and the appellate court should only interfere if the trial court's conclusions are 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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhrangadhra (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 9/2006 on 12.01.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the B.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 13.10.2005, at around 01.00 am, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and armed themselves with swords and assaulted the complainant, abused him and threatened to kill him. The accused also hurled derogating caste slurs against him and the complainant - Rajan Jagdishbhai Solanki filed a complaint at the Dhrangadhra City Police Station under Section 323, 504, 506(2), 147, 148, 149, 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 25(1)BA, 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act which came to be registered as Dhrangadhra Police Station I – C.R. No. 93/2005.

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, Dhrangadhra 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 at Dhrangadhra as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case No. 9/2006.

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. 4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 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 13 witnesses and produced 11 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 prosecut