JUDGMENT : NISHA M. THAKORE, J. 1. The present appeal at the instance of the State under Section 378(1)(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is filed against the judgment and order dated 3rd November, 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge & Special Judge, Dhrangadhra in Special Case No. 5 of 2007 challenging the aforesaid order of acquittal of the respondent no. 1-original accused for the offences alleged under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, as well as, Sections 183 and 184 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocity Act, 1989’ for the sake of convenience). 2. The case put-forward by the prosecution by referring to the allegations made by the original complainant are as under: 2.1 The complainant, Jesingbhai Tejabhai Makwana belongs to Scheduled Caste being ‘Hindu-Vankar’ as recognized by the State Government, is a resident of Mithagodha Village, Taluka Patdi, District Surendranagar, has approached the Zinjuvada Police Station, with a complaint which is registered as C.R. No. II-3008 of 2007 on 14th March, 2007 at around 22:00 hours. It is contended that the complainant is residing with his family and is holding five Vighas of agricultural land, which is cultivated by him and his father. Currently in the aforesaid land, the crops were standing and since in the night hours the animals used to enter the field and damage the crops, he had gone to visit his field. While he was there on 14th March, 2007 at his field known as Vadiwada at around 8:00 to 9:00 hours in the night, it was noticed that one cow had entered his field and had caused damage to the standing crops. He had therefore, moved the cattle out of his field and had proceeded with the cow. On his way, a house of the respondent no. 1-accused-Rabari Rajabhai Bhathibhai was noticed and he had inquired as to whether the said cow belonged to him, to which the respondent no. 1-accused had responded that ‘yes’ the cow belonged to him but had inquired further as to what had happened. On his way, a house of the respondent no. 1-accused-Rabari Rajabhai Bhathibhai was noticed and he had inquired as to whether the said cow belonged to him, to which the respondent no. 1-accused had responded that ‘yes’ the cow belonged to him but had inquired further as to what had happened. The complainant had raised concern about the damage caused to his standing crops and had cautioned to take the cow to Dabba, to which the respondent-accused had got excited and had started hurling abusive language at the complainant and had objected to the aforesaid act of the complainant. In that process, he had pushed the complainant on the ground and the complainant had received abrasions on his left arm. It is further alleged that the respondent-accused has assaulted the complainant by hitting with the stick on his head causing injury on his ear. Because of such injuries, the complainant had screamed since was night hours no one had approached to relieve him. The complainant had therefore, approached his father who was at different field, taking care of the standing crops and had shared about incident. It is the case of the complainant that the father of the complainant viz. Tejabhai and the complainant had once again visited the house of the respondent-accused and while father of the complainant had asked him about the incident, the respondent-accused had also assaulted his father with the stick and had remarked against his caste by using abusive words and had threatened them for their life. Because of the threat administered by the respondent-accused, it is the case of the complainant that they had returned back to their house and thereafter, they had approached the Police Station by lodging the present FIR. With such circumstances being noticed, the FIR came to be registered with the Patdi Police Station against the respondent-accused for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, as well as, Section 183 and 184 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, 1989. 3. The investigation, after the FIR was registered, was handed over to the Competent Officer under the Special Act. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar had embarked upon the investigation. The statement of the complainant, as well as, witnesses have been recorded. The panchnama of scene of offence was drawn. 3. The investigation, after the FIR was registered, was handed over to the Competent Officer under the Special Act. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Surendranagar had embarked upon the investigation. The statement of the complainant, as well as, witnesses have been recorded. The panchnama of scene of offence was drawn. The documents in the nature of the Caste Certificate, the Notification issued by the District Magistrate concerned under Section 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act was collected. At the end of the investigation, considering the involvement of the respondent-original accused, charge-sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, as well as, Sections 183 and 184 of the Gujarat Panchayat Act, and Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, 1989. 4. The charge-sheet was submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Patdi. Since the offence committed by the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of learned Special Judge under the Special Act, the same was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhrangadhra for trial which was registered as Special Case No. 5 of 2007 (Atrocity). The respondent-accused had appeared before the learned Sessions Judge and had pleaded not guilty to the charges levelled against him and had claimed to be tried. Before the trial Court, the prosecution had mainly led oral evidence. The prosecution has examined the original complainant as PW-1 at Exh.8. 5. The FIR of the alleged incident has been admitted as an evidence through the said witness at Exh.10. The panch witness named Merubhai Talshibhai has been examined as PW-2. The place of the incident has been proved through the said witness. The panchnama of the place of incident has been admitted as an evidence at Exh.12. Two witnesses to the arrest panchnama viz. Hasmukhbhai Chaturbhai and Khetabhai Satabhai has been examined as PWs. 4 and 3 respectively. However, both these panch witnesses have turned hostile. 6. The arrest panchnama of the respondent accused has been brought on record by the prosecution at Exh.14. The recovery of the weapon alleged to have been used in the incident has been brought on record through the aforesaid panchnama. 7. 4 and 3 respectively. However, both these panch witnesses have turned hostile. 6. The arrest panchnama of the respondent accused has been brought on record by the prosecution at Exh.14. The recovery of the weapon alleged to have been used in the incident has been brought on record through the aforesaid panchnama. 7. Apart from the evidence of the complainant, the prosecution has examined Tejabhai Vashrambhai (PW-5) at Exh.16, who is the father of the original complainant as well as, eye-witness to the second part of the incident. The prosecution has examined Ramjibhai Jagjibhai Pargi (PW-6) Exh.17, who is Deputy Superintendent of Police, SC-ST Cell, Surendranagar, who is the Investigating Officer. 8. The Notification issued under Section 37(3) of the Bombay Police Act is brought on record through the said witness at Exh.18. The Police Sub-Inspector in-charge of Jinjuwada Police Station, who had registered the FIR has been examined as PW-7 at Exh.20. No other independent witness or any other documentary evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution. 9. The further statement of the accused has been recorded under Section 313 of the Code. He has raised defence about false case being filed against him. Analysis of the order: 10. The learned Magistrate upon appreciation of the aforesaid oral as well as, documentary evidence brought on record by the prosecution, has recorded findings which reads as under: (a) No revenue record has been brought on record by the prosecution as regards the case of the complainant of holding agricultural land. As against that, the Trial Court has noticed that in cross- examination, the complainant has admitted that the said land falls within the limits of forest reserved area. (b) No evidence have been brought on record to establish the fact that the grazing cow belongs to the accused. The trial Court has further noticed that even on plain reading of the complaint, it is not the case of the complainant that the accused had intentionally left his cattle inside the field of the complainant. (c) The complainant in his cross-examination had admitted that he was not aware about the owner of the cow. It is further stated that when he visited the house of the accused, he was sleeping and the cow was not found at his house and had went away to some other place. (c) The complainant in his cross-examination had admitted that he was not aware about the owner of the cow. It is further stated that when he visited the house of the accused, he was sleeping and the cow was not found at his house and had went away to some other place. (d) The trial Court, to appreciate the case of the prosecution has closely scrutinized the case of the prosecution and has noticed three different versions of the complainant, which has emerged on record in the form of the original complaint as recorded by the Police Officer, the examination-in-chief of the complainant and his cross-examination. Upon appreciation of the aforesaid three versions of the complainant, major contradictions had been noticed by the trial Court as regards the manner of occurrence of the alleged incident projected in the original complaint against the accused. (e) No evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution before the trial Court with regard to the injuries as alleged to have been sustained by the complainant as narrated in his complaint at Exh.10. No medical documentary evidence has been brought on record. (f) The trial Court has upon appreciation of panchnama of place of offence, noted that nothing adverse is reported as alleged by the complainant about the damage caused to the standing crops. (g) While appreciating the evidence of the father of the complainant (PW-2), the trial Court has noticed that he has not deposed with regard to any abusive words being used by the accused or even the alleged threat of life administered by the accused. The trial Court has further noticed contradictions in the evidence of said witness as against the case put-forward by the complainant. The trial Court has noticed exaggerations in the description of injuries alleged to have been sustained by the complainant. The Trial Court has also noticed that the said witness has disputed and has refused to identify the muddamal stick, which is shown to him during the course of trial. (h) The two panchas to the arrest panchnama of the accused, which also refers to the recovery of the weapon stick, have turned hostile. The panchnama of place of offence at Exh.12 does not indicate any damage sustained. The presence of the cattle is not found. No corroborated material has been brought on record by the prosecution to indicate that the cow belonged to the respondent-accused. The panchnama of place of offence at Exh.12 does not indicate any damage sustained. The presence of the cattle is not found. No corroborated material has been brought on record by the prosecution to indicate that the cow belonged to the respondent-accused. The trial Court has noticed that the caste certificate Exh.9 indicates the fact that the original complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. However, the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations that the accused had intentionally insulted the original complainant by making any remarks against the caste of the original complaint. (i) The trial Court has upon appreciation of evidence brought on record found that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive so as to attract the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, 1989. The core of the dispute as alleged by the complainant about the altercation having taken place on account of the alleged damage caused to the standing crops of the complainant by the cattle of the respondent accused, in no manner can be construed to be falling within the purview of the Atrocity Act, 1989. (j) With such findings being recorded by the trial Court, on overall appreciation of evidence concluded that the prosecution has failed to establish the offence alleged against the accused beyond doubt and has therefore recorded acquittal. 11. Considering the submissions of the learned APP for the appellant-State in light of the evidence available on record, the prosecution has mainly relied upon the oral evidence brought on record, which includes the evidence of the original complainant and the father of the complainant (PW-2). Except for the Caste Certificate, the Notification issued under Section 37(3), the arrest panchnama and panchnama of place of offence, no other documentary evidence has been brought on record. On close reading of the original complaint, it includes chain of circumstances right from the cattle found inside the field of the complainant till the alleged altercation at the house of the accused. The obligation was upon the Investigating Officer to collect the necessary evidence to establish the chain of events as alleged in the complaint. In absence of documentary evidence being brought on record, there is no corroboration to the evidence of the complainant. The learned APP in absence of any such evidence being brought on record is unable to dispute the findings of the Trial Court. In absence of documentary evidence being brought on record, there is no corroboration to the evidence of the complainant. The learned APP in absence of any such evidence being brought on record is unable to dispute the findings of the Trial Court. Thus, no perversity or any irregularities noticed with regard to the findings arrived by the trial Court, which is based on the appreciation of evidence. 12. In absence of any evidence independent witness, the Trial Court was left-out with the evidence of original complainant and the father of the complainant. As rightly noticed, it would be difficult to convict the accused for the alleged offence by relying upon the evidence of aforesaid two witnesses in absence of any corroboration. As rightly noticed by the learned Special Judge, major contradictions have emerged on record in their evidence, which creates doubt on the case put-forward by the original complainant. It is trite law in criminal jurisprudence that for convicting an accused, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt each of the incriminating circumstances on which it proposes to rely. The circumstances relied upon must be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the accused guilt and forming a chain so far complete that there is no escape from conclusion that within all human probability, it is the accused and no one else, who had committed the crime. Excluding all the other hypothesis inconsistent with his guilt and consistent with his innocence. Considering the scope of the appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code, in absence of any perversity in recording finding, ground reasoning and erroneous conclusion of the trial Court, this Court is in complete agreement with the reasoning assigned by the trial Court while recording acquittal. 13. Even otherwise, in the instance case, the allegations of the respondent no. 2 in the entire complaint as well as, the evidence brought on record does not established the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, 1989. I may quote with profit a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Asmathunnisa vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2011 SC 1905 : “8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that: (A) According to the complaint, no offence under the aforesaid section can be made out against the appellant because the ingredients of the offence are not made out. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that: (A) According to the complaint, no offence under the aforesaid section can be made out against the appellant because the ingredients of the offence are not made out. In the complaint so called offending words were not even attributed to the appellant. It is alleged that the appellant merely accompanied her husband and the offending words were spoken by the husband of the appellant, therefore, the appellant in this appeal by no stretch of imagination can be held guilty of the offence under the section 3(1)(x) of the 1989 Act. (B) According to the section, any word which intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe is an offence under the 1989 Act. In the instant case, the husband of Sridevi was not present when the offending words, if any, were spoken by the husband of the appellant. In absence of real aggrieved person present at that point of time, no offence under the said section can be made out against the appellant. (C) It is not established that the words were spoken by a person who was not a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. (D) The entire incident is alleged to have taken place at the residence of Sridevi and not in any place within public view. (E) None of the ingredients of this offence are present in the instant case. Even if the contents of the complaint in its entirety are taken as correct and true even then no offence is made out against the appellant.” 14. Equally, profitable would be to refer to relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2008) 12 SCC 531 : “6. In the instant case, the allegation of respondent No. 3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.” 15. Applying the aforesaid ratio of the settled principles of law to the facts of the case, then in my view no offence as alleged under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, 1989 is made out, to hold the accused guilty. For the, discrepancies noticed earlier, the other offence alleged are also not made out. I am of considered opinion that the appeal cannot be entertained. 16. Hence, the present appeal is not entertained and is hereby dismissed. The appeal stands disposed of as dismissed. 17. R&P be sent back to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Bailable warrant issued upon respondent no. 1 stands cancelled.