JUDGMENT : R.P. Dholaria, J. 1. The appellant State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under section 378(1) (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 14.6.2000 rendered by learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Fast Track Court No. 5, Kachchh at Bhuj in Special Case No. 47 of 2002. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that on 25.5.2000 at about 8.30 am all the accused persons in abatement of one another were constructing wall which was raising obstacles to the complainant, and, therefore, the complainant has requested not to construct wall in the manner in which it may cause disturbance to him. It is alleged that therefore, the accused excited and started to give filthy abuses to the complainant and prosecution witnesses concerning to their caste in public. Hence, the complaint came to be lodged against the respondents accused. 3. In pursuance of the complaint, the Investigating Officer carried out the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the respondents accused. The charge was framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses and also produced documentary evidences such as panchnama of scene of offence Exh. 8, original complaint Exh. 10 and certificate of caste Exh. 30. 3.2 At the end of the trial, after recording the statements of the accused under section 313of the Cr. P.C and hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court delivered the judgment and order, as stated above. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant State has preferred the aforesaid Criminal Appeal before this Court. 5. By way of preferring the present appeal, the appellant has mainly contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the order of acquittal. It is further contended that learned trial Judge has not appreciated the evidence on record in its proper perspective and in fact, there was no appreciation of evidence so far and hence, the impugned judgment and order of acquittal is required to be reversed, as such. 5.1 Mr. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. 5.1 Mr. Dabhi, learned APP appearing for the appellant State has reiterated and urged the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal. Learned APP has taken this Court through the paper-book and evidence on record and argued that learned trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongfully acquitted the accused though ample evidence is available on record for the alleged offences. In his submission, therefore, learned trial Court ought to have convicted the accused and hence, learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and wrongly recorded the judgment of acquittal which is required to be reversed and the respondents are required to be convicted, as such. 6. On the other-hand, Mr. Jayesh Dave, learned Advocate for the respondents accused has taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper. Mr. Dave further submitted that there is no iota of evidence available against the present accused. He, therefore, submitted that in view of the evidence on record, it cannot be said that the learned trial Judge has committed any error in passing the impugned order acquitting the accused, and therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. This Court has heard Mr. L.B. Dabhi, learned APP for the appellant State and Mr. Jayesh Dave, learned advocate for the respondents accused. 8. This Court has minutely gone through the impugned judgment rendered by learned trial Court as well as the evidence on record in the nature of paper book. As per the prosecution case, the present respondents in order to restrain easementary right of the complainant tried to construct the building in violation of the rules and hence, the complainant requested not to do so, but the respondents got excited and uttered derogatory words concerning the caste of the complainant in public and, thereby the accused committed offence punishable under section 504 read with section 114 of IPC and section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 was registered. 8.1 In order to prove the case against the accused, the prosecution has examined complainant - Devji Damji Dafda, witness - Sardarsinh Valabhai Parghi, witness - Nilesh Devji Dafda and witness Tejsi Punsi Tharu and precisely, they have deposed that complainant is residing at 51-A Shivkrupa, Bhuj, while the respondents are residing at 51-B Shivkrupa, Bhuj. The witnesses stated that while the present respondents tried to construct the upper floor over the existing building, the complainant tried to restrain the respondents by way of instituting the civil suit wherein the complainant failed to obtain the interim injunction and they have preferred the appeal before the District Court wherein also, he failed and thereafter, the present complaint is lodged. The said complaint is in the nature of ventilating the grievance to restrain easementary right as well as construction is in such a manner which is taking away the right and virtually preventing ingress and egress of the complainant. 8.2 On overall evaluation of the evidence on record, it appears that the present complaint appears to have been filed on failure to get the interim injunction before the competent civil court. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the allegations made in the complaint, it seems that some altercation took place between the parties as regards to construction of upper floor alleged to have undertaken by the respondents in their own house which is in view of the complainant's side was blocking easementary right as well as access to his house. So far as the allegation as regards to blockage of access as well as easementary right is concerned, the present complainant as well as prosecution witnesses have instituted the civil suit and the incident as alleged has taken place on 25.5.2000 in the morning at 8.30. So far as the allegation as regards to uttering derogatory words concerning the caste of the complainant is concerned, on going through the evidence on record, no concrete evidence has been brought on record as to who has uttered what sort of words. However, from the evidence on record, it appears that the dispute as regards to construction of house for which the civil proceedings were instituted and the respondents being the neighbors, the said dispute has been culminated into the criminal case. However, from the evidence on record, it appears that the dispute as regards to construction of house for which the civil proceedings were instituted and the respondents being the neighbors, the said dispute has been culminated into the criminal case. Such practice of adopting short cut or rather resorting to criminal proceedings and gearing up the criminal machinery for the civil rights is required to be deprecated. The evaluation of evidence on record does not suggest that there was any intention on the part of the respondents to utter the derogatory words concerning the caste of the complainant. 8.3 PW 5 - Omprakash Lalitprasad Sharma Exh. 29 who was serving as Police Sub Inspector in Bhuj Taluka Police Station has carried out the entire investigation and thereafter, it was handed over to Dy. S.P. Mr. Muniya who in turn, merely filed the chargesheet. As Mr. Muniya, Dy.S.P. expired, he could not be examined as witness. As the investigation is carried out by the Police Sub Inspector, Mr. Jayesh Dave, learned advocate for the respondents has relied upon the decision reported in, (2010) 15 SCC 103 (State of Andhra Pradesh v. Viswanadula Chetti Babu). 8.4 In this view of the matter, learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent accused considering the nature of evidence on record. There is no iota of evidence to link the accused with the crime in question so far as the allegations under the provisions of the Atrocity Act are concerned. Nothing reveals from the complaint itself. Even otherwise, the alleged offence is being investigated by the Police Officer not below the rank of DSP. It is by now well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a particular thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner alone. Admittedly, in the present case, the investigation is carried out by the Police Sub Inspector which is not permissible and hence, the investigation done by any officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police would be in breach of Rule 7 of the rules framed by the legislature in this behalf. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasoning’s, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. 9. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeals, the appellate Court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasoning’s, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. 10. In above view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that learned trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondents of the charges leveled against him. This Court finds that the findings recorded by learned trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it. This Court is, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by learned court below and hence finds no reasons to interfere with the same. 11. In the result, this appeal fails and accordingly, it is dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. R & P to be sent back to the trial Court, forthwith.