Appellate courts should not interfere with an acquittal order unless the trial court's decision is perverse, suffers from patent illegality, or ignores material evidence, given the double presumption of innocence and the principle that if two views are possible, the trial court's finding must prevail.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev J.Thaker, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.06.2012, passed by the learned 8th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No. 198/2011, for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “the Code”).

2. The prosecution case as unfolded during the trial before the lower Court is that the complainant lodged a complaint alleging that due to prior enmity and dispute, the accused came to the place of residence of the complainant on 08.06.2009 at about 6:00 p.m., abused and threatened the complainant and his family members, and attempted to assault the complainant with a sword. During the incident, the complainant sustained injuries on his head and his minor brother Dinesh sustained injuries on his right hand while trying to prevent the assault. Both injured were taken for medical treatment. Therefore, the complaint was lodged against the respondent-accused.

3. After investigation, sufficient prima facie evidence was found against the accused person/s and therefore charge-sheet was filed in the competent criminal Court. The charge was framed against the accused person/s. The accused pleaded not guilty and came to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 06 witnesses and also produced 09 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:

Oral Evidences

Documentary evidences

5. After hearing both the parties and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for the offences for which they were charged, by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

6. Learned APP for the appellant – State has pointed out the facts of the case and having taken this Court through both, oral and documentary evidence, recorded before the learned trial Court, would submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed error in acquitting the accused. It is submitted that the learned trial Court ought not to have given much emphasis to the contradictions and/or omissions appearing in the evidence and ought to have given weightage to the dots that connect the accused with the offence in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has erroneously come to the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. It is also submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that the evidence produced on record is reliable and believable and it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had committed an offence in question. It is, therefore, submitted that this Court may allow this appeal by appreciating the evidence led before the learned trial Court.

7. Rule served. None appears on behalf of the respondent/s.

8. In the aforesaid background, considering the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, independently and dispassionately and considering the impugned judgment and order of the trial Court, the following aspects weighed with the Court:

8.1 The prosecution h