JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV J.THAKER, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.07.2010, passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, in Special (Atrocity) Case No.60 of 2007 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 114 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) 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 on 12.07.2007, the complainant along with his nephew Daya Samant and Bhupat Meharbhai was present at their field. At that time, the respondents–accused, armed with sticks, came there and started abusing them and also threatened to kill them. When the complainant and others requested pardon, the respondents–accused became aggressive and began assaulting them with sticks, as a result of which they sustained injuries. 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.60 of 2007. The charges were 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 11 witnesses and also produced 10 documentary evidence before the Trial Court, which are described in the impugned judgment as under:

Oral Evidence 

Documentary Evidence

5. After hearing both the parties and after analyzing the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused of 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, submitted that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its true sense and perspective; and that the trial Court has committed an 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. As against that, learned advocate for the respondent/s would support the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial Court and has submitted that the learned trial Court has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. The trial Court has taken possible view as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal by confirming the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court.

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 weigh