JUDGMENT : The present acquittal Appeal has been filed by the appellant ' original complainant, State of Gujarat under Section 378 of the Cr. P.C., against the Judgment and order dated 26.09.2003 rendered by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar, in Special Sessions Case No.37 of 2002. The said case was registered against the present respondents-original accused for the offence under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 2. According to the prosecution case, complainant Arvindbhai Navinbhai Vaghela belong to Valmiki Harijan caste and maintaining his family by doing driving. On 11.06.2002 at about 8:00 a.m., when the complainant and his wife were going to Ganeshvas and reached at Rickshaw Stand, one rickshaw driver Babubhai asked the complainant whether he wanted to hire a rickshaw but the complainant replied in negative. However, another rickshaw driver i.e. the present respondent-accused No.1Altaf alias Karo told the complainant not to sit in his rickshaw and thereby misbehaved with the complainant. Thereafter, when the complainant and his wife returned to the said place again as they were going to aunt- s home, the complainant told his wife to go aunt- s home and thereafter, he went to respondent-accused No.1 and told him that why he misbehaved with them in the morning. Respondent-accused No.1 got exited and inflicted a blow with the iron (akshel) on the head of the complainant. Respondent-accused No.2-Jayendrasinh inflicted a hockey blow on the back of the complainant and respondent-accused No.3-Vijaysinh inflicted a blow with the iron rod on the leg of the complainant. On hearing the shout of the complainant, his aunt Nanuben rushed to the place and she took the complainant to the Government hospital. The complaint was filed, statements of the witnesses were recorded. Thereafter, caste certificate of the complainant was obtained, investigation was carried out, medical certificate was obtained and charge-sheet was filed by Investigating Officer. 3. On the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.5 and readover and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. 3. On the basis of above allegations, charge was framed vide Exh.5 and readover and explained to the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 4. In support of the prosecution case, prosecution has examined four oral evidences : Sr. No. Exh. Name of Witness 1 10 Doctor-Khalid Hamidbhai Qureshi 2 13 Compalainant-Arvindbhai Navinbhai Vaghela 3 15 Panch witness-Mahes Bhimjibhai Vaghela 4 17 Witness-Lataben w/o Arvindbhai 5 18 Witness-Labhuben w/of Mavjibhai 6 19 Witness-Nauben Motibhai Parmar 7 20 PSO-Pushpaben Ranchhodbhai Khetani 8 24 Witness-Narendrasinh Gulabsinh Jethwa 9 26 Panch-Nitin Bhailal 10 28 Panch-Rajendrasinh Ajitsinh Parmar 11 31 IO-Chhaguji Chaturji Rajput 5. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has produced several documentary evidences including injury certificate, complainant etc. 6. Thereafter, after filing closing pursis by the prosecution, further statement of accused person under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused person has denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 7. Learned trial Judge has observed that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and considered the defence version of the respondents-accused and learned trial Judge has passed the acquittal order in favour of the respondents-accused. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal dated 26-09-2003 rendered by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar, in Special Sessions Case No.37 of 2002, the appellant' State has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP for the appellant' State. Mr. Soni has read evidence of Medical Officer as well the injured witness and eye-witnesses and caste certificate issued by the public servant and evidence of the Investigating Officer. He has fairly admitted that evidence of the panch witnesses are not supporting to the prosecution case. He has argued that from the medical certificate, injury is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has further contended that injured complainant and his wife and two other eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but the learned Judge has not considered their evidences and wrongly acquitted the respondents-accused. He has argued that from the medical certificate, injury is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has further contended that injured complainant and his wife and two other eye-witnesses have supported the prosecution case, but the learned Judge has not considered their evidences and wrongly acquitted the respondents-accused. He further contended that learned Judge has committed grave error and therefore, he has prayed to set aside the judgment and order of the acquittal. He has further contended that the injured complainant is from the backward class and therefore, he is entitled for proper assistance. 9. Heard Mr. Rahul R. Dholakia, learned counsel for the respondents-accused. He has argued that it is prima-facie established that the complainant has filed false complaint against respondents-accused. He read oral versions of the witnesses and vehemently argued that panch witnesses have failed to prove as to whether the incident in question was happened at the said place or not. He has read the oral version of medical officer at Exh.10 and contended that injuries alleged to have been sustained by the complainant are not in consonance with the complaint. He then argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the injuries on the back portion and leg of the complainant. He contended that on bare perusal of the medical certificate, no injury was found from the back and leg of the injured complainant. He then read the cross-examination of panch witness and contended that the injuries sustained by the injured complainant is not possible through iron road or hockey stick. He further read oral evidences of the complainant, wife of the complainant and other witnesses and contended that at the first event only a word was uttered by respondent No.1 that ' Kanta lage chhe' and argued that this is not the insulted word to be used by the accused No.1 to the complainant. He has further contended that as per the charge-sheet, if the injury is not prove properly from the evidence of the witnesses, ingredient of Section 312 is also not proved. Mr. Dholakia has read oral evidences and judgment and order and vehemently argued that when prima facie case is not proved and when learned Judge has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, then the prosecution has no right to say that the case is proved against the respondents-accused. Mr. Dholakia has read oral evidences and judgment and order and vehemently argued that when prima facie case is not proved and when learned Judge has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, then the prosecution has no right to say that the case is proved against the respondents-accused. He further contended that there is no substance in appeal and therefore, may be dismissed. 10. Heard learned advocates for both the parties. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge and medical certificate. I have read the oral evidence of prosecution witness-complainant and also perused the charge framed against the respondents-accused. I have also considered the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties. 11. Learned Judge has considered the evidences of the witnesses and observed that the injury is not proved and the injury sustained by the complainant is not possible by the weapons used by the respondents-accused and evidences of the witnesses are contradictory to each other. I have perused the oral as well as documentary evidences. In view of the above observations made by the learned Judge, I am in complete agreement that the learned Judge has rightly acquitted the respondents-accused. There in no substance in the appeal and the arguments made by the learned APP. Though learned APP has tried to establish his case, but the Court has not found any sufficient evidence to consider and entertain this appeal. 12. In a recent decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Anr. Reported in (2007) 3 SCC 75 : (AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 61, the Court has reiterated the powers of the High Court in such cases. In para 16 of the said decision the Court has observed as under: ' 16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the Court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower Court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterized as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the Court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the Court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the conclusion arrived at by the Court below is perverse and the Court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to re-appreciate the evidence to arrive to a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with the commission of the crime he is charged with.' 13. Similar principle has been laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ram Veer Singh & Ors. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5553 and in Girja Prasad (Dead) by LRs. v. State of MP, reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5589. Thus, the powers which this Court may exercise against an order of acquittal are well settled. 14. In view of the above, the Appeal is hereby dismissed. The impugned judgment and order dated 26.09.2003 rendered by the learned Special Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Jamnagar, in Special Sessions Case No.37 of 2002, acquitting the respondents' accused is hereby confirmed. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the trial Court concerned, forthwith. Bail bond shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.