JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against judgment and order dated 31.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Anand in Special (Atro.) Case No. 30 of 2008, acquitting the respondents accused for the offence punishable Sections 324 and 504 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 2. As per the prosecution version, on 12.11.2002, while the complainant was taking with one Chandu for not paying more price for the chair purchased, at that time, respondent No. 1-accused No.1 suddenly arriving at his house with knife, assaulted him and also uttered derogatory words concerning his caste & community. It is also the case that thereafter, respondent No. 2 -accused No.2 -wife of accused No.1 also arrived there and assaulted the complainant with stick. Thereby, the respondents accused committed an offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with 114 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. 3. After registration of complaint, investigation was carried out and charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused in the Court of learned Magistrate. As the case was triable by learned Special Court, the same was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge. Thereafter, the charge came to be framed and explained to the accused, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 3.1 In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined the witnesses and produced the documentary evidence. 3.2 Thereafter, after filing of closing purshis by the prosecution, further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating evidence on record, the learned trail court delivered the impugned judgment. The accused denied the case of the prosecution and submitted that a false case is filed against them. 3.3 At the conclusion of trial and after appreciating evidence on record, the learned trail court delivered the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 31.12.2009 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge and Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Anand in Special (Atro.) Case No. 30 of 2008 acquitting the respondents accused, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred the present appeal before this Court. 4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Ms. Hansa Punani has taken this Court through the entire record & proceedings and argued that though the complainant victim as well as his wife have fully supported the case of the prosecution and their depositions are also getting full corroboration from the evidence of the doctor who treated the complainant victim, the learned trial court recording the contradictions and inconsistent evidence, discarded their evidence and gave the benefit of doubt to the respondents accused. Learned APP has further argued that since the prosecution has proved the offence alleged against the respondents accused, the judgment of acquittal be reversed into conviction. 4.1 Though served, neither the respondents remained present nor put appearance. 5. This Court has minutely gone through the entire record & proceedings, impugned judgment and order as well as evidence of material witnesses. 6. During the course of investigation, several panchnama came to be drawn as regards the scene of occurrence as well as recovery of weapon, but none of the panchas had supported the case of the prosecution and had become hostile to the case of the prosecution. 7. Prosecution witness No.6-Vijay Damor -the complainant deposed that on 12.11.2002, during nocturnal hours, when he was at his home, at that time, accused No. 1-Bahadur arriving there with knife, abused him and inflicted knife blows over his right eye and on his shoulder. He also deposed that one another accused Chandu arrived there. He deposed that accused No. 2-Madhu also assaulted him with stick. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he purchased the chair from one Chandu who was relative of the accused. He also admitted that there was only dealing with Chandu as regards the purchase of chair. He also admitted that his house was surrounded by several other houses. He also admitted that there was no enmity between them prior to the incident. 8. He also admitted that there was only dealing with Chandu as regards the purchase of chair. He also admitted that his house was surrounded by several other houses. He also admitted that there was no enmity between them prior to the incident. 8. Prosecution witness No.7-Keshaben Damor-wife of the complainant deposed that on the day of incident, while they were talking as regards the purchase of chair, at that time, accused No.1-Bahadur arrived there with knife and assaulted. She also deposed that accused No. 2-Madhu also assaulted with stick and thereafter, they uttered derogatory words concerning their caste & community. In the cross-examination, she admitted that her husband purchased the chair from Chandu. 9. Prosecution witness No.8-Dr. Vinay Khanapura deposed that at the relevant time, he was serving as Medical Officer with Anand Nagarpalika. He deposed that at about 9.30pm, he examined the complainant and at that time, he gave the history that accused No.1-Bahadur assaulted him. He deposed that two injuries were found over the person of the complainant which were possible by sharp cutting instrument. 10. The prosecution also examined Kantibhai Parmar, Head Constable as well as Harisinh Vaghela, Police Sup Inspector who investigated the crime and filed charge-sheet after conclusion of investigation. 11. On overall evaluation of aforesaid evidence on record, there appears no uniformity amongst the evidence produced by the prosecution from the mouth of the witnesses. Though the complainant involved accused No.2-Madhu-wife of accused No.1 and also deposed that she assaulted with stick, the say of the complainant as well as the say of his wife are at all not getting any sort of corroboration from the medical evidence at Exh.26. Similarly, Exh.26 is not disclosing that the injury was caused to the complainant due to assault by accused No.1-Bahadur. The certificate simply mentions some iron object. As regards the history given before the Doctor, there appears no uniformity in the evidence of the complainant and his wife. 12. Similarly, Exh.26 is not disclosing that the injury was caused to the complainant due to assault by accused No.1-Bahadur. The certificate simply mentions some iron object. As regards the history given before the Doctor, there appears no uniformity in the evidence of the complainant and his wife. 12. In view of aforesaid nature of evidence, since none of the independent witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution and the complainant as well as his wife' evidence do not inspire confidence of this Court as there appears no uniformity being totally contrary to the medical evidence, consequently therefore, the learned trial court has rightly not placed reliance upon such evidence and rightly acquitted the respondents accused in connection with the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504 read with Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code. 13. So far as offence under Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is concerned, the complainant has not deposed that the respondents accused had uttered any derogatory words concerning his caste & community, though his wife stated so. Even the investigation is indisputably carried out by the Head Constable and Police Sub Inspector and as per the provisions of Rule 7 of the Prevention of Atrocities Rules, the investigation must be carried out by the officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In that view of the matter also, the entire procedure of investigation gets vitiated. On that count also, the respondents cannot be convicted based upon faulty investigation. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merits deserves dismissal and is dismissed. 15. The record & proceedings be sent back to the concerned trial court forthwith.