JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.08.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana, in Special Atrocity Case No. 18/2010, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(X) of the Scheduled Castes, and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, 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 approached the accused for a routine matter related to signing a school document. On this, the accused became aggressive, started abusing the complainant in filthy language, and threatened to kill him. It is further alleged that the accused caused simple injuries to the complainant and insulted him by using caste-related abusive words in a public place. Due to this conduct, the accused is alleged to have committed offences involving hurt, intentional insult, criminal intimidation, and caste-based humiliation. Therefore, the complaint was filed against the respondent/s-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 for the offences as alleged. Since the offence alleged against the accused person/s was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court where it came to be registered as Special (Atrocity) Case No.18/2010. 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 6 witnesses and also produced 5 documentary evidence before the trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment are 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 Co