JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. Present Appeal under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Cr.P.C.” for short) is filed by the appellant-State of Gujarat against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, (Atrocity) (“Special Court” for short) in Atrocity Case No. 13 of 2009, whereby the Special Court has acquitted the respondent accused from the charges levelled against her under Sections 323, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (“Atrocity Act” for short). 2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 31.10.2007 at about 8.00 hrs. some hot altercation took place between the complainant and accused and because of such altercation, the present respondent got exited and gave kick and fist blows on the stomach of the complainant/informant-Manjulaben Amratbhai Parmar and insulted her by her caste and community. In such circumstances, the daughter of informant tried to intercept and intervene in the quarrel. Due to injury, the informant felt unconscious and thereafter, she was taken to the Civil Hospital whereby, she was examined and treated by the doctor. Thereafter, complaint came to be lodged against respondent accused for an offence under Sections 323, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code read with the provisions of Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The information was recorded at Madhavpura Police Station being C.R. No. II-3262 of 2007. Since the offence is under the Special Act, the offence was investigated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police L-Division. 2.1 Thereafter, Investigating Officer has recorded the statements of the concerned witnesses, drew the panchnama of the place of occurrence and also collected relevant materials and the chargesheet was submitted in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate Court No. 2. The same was registered as Criminal Case No. 4807 of 2007. 2.2 Since the case is exclusively triable by the court of sessions i.e. Special Court therefore, after completion the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. the case was committed to the court of sessions i.e. Special Court and the same was registered as Atrocity Case No. 13 of 2009. 2.3 The Special Court has framed the charges against the accused. The accused pleaded no guilty and therefore, the Court had issued a summons. 2.3 The Special Court has framed the charges against the accused. The accused pleaded no guilty and therefore, the Court had issued a summons. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses and also produced as many as five documentary evidence referred in paragraph No. 8 of the impugned judgment and order. 2.4 After considering oral as well as documentary evidence and after considering the depositions of the witnesses and after considering the 313 statement of the accused, the Special Court has acquitted present respondent accused from the charges levelled against her, since the prosecution measurably failed to establish the charge against the present respondent. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Court, the appellant-State of Gujarat has preferred present Appeal. 3. The Appeal came to be admitted by this Court vide order dated 26.9.2011 and in response thereto the Court had issued a bailable warrant against respondent No. 1. 3.1 During the pendency of the Appeal, the subsequent amendment came into force in Section 15A(5) of the Atrocity Act and therefore, the Court had permitted the learned APP to join the original complainant as party respondent No. 2 and issued notice vide order dated 26.9.2023. When the notice was issued by the Court to the original complainant, it was found that the original complainant was passed away. Even though, the bailable warrant served upon respondent No. 1-original accused has chosen not to remain present before the Court nor any alternative arrangement is made. Therefore, the Court at the time of hearing, requested learned Counsel Mr. Raxit Dholakia, to assist the Court on behalf of respondent No. 1 which he has accepted. 4. Heard Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant and Mr. Raxit Dholakia, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-accused. 5. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned APP has submitted that the Special Court has committed serious error of law and on facts both by disbelieving the evidence of the witnesses, mainly on the ground that they are the interested witnesses. He has submitted that now the law is well settled that merely because the interested witnesses deposing in line of the story put forward by the prosecution, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. Mr. He has submitted that now the law is well settled that merely because the interested witnesses deposing in line of the story put forward by the prosecution, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant urges that the evidence of those witnesses are supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the same ought to have been taken into consideration by the Special Court, however, without considering the said aspect, the Special Court has passed impugned judgment and order and therefore, the order of acquittal deserves to be quashed and set aside and present appeal requires to be allowed. 5.1 Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned APP further submits that respondent No. 1 has used filthy language and also disrespect the complainant by using an abusive words of her caste and the Special Court failed to appreciate this fact in its true and proper spirit, while passing the impugned judgment of acquittal and therefore, impugned judgment and order of acquittal is bad in law, erroneous and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.2 Mr. Brahmbhatt, learned APP for respondent No. 1 submits that the Special Court failed to appreciate the fact that the complainant was suffered from serious ailment and therefore the injury caused to the complainant ought to have considered by the Special Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order. He has submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the Special Court was not justified in appreciating the evidence of Dr. Sandhya Aayangar, who has deposed before the Court at Exh.21. He has submitted that even the medical certificate issued by Dr. Sandhya Aayangar was not properly appreciated by the Special Court and therefore, the impugned judgment and order of Special Court is erroneous, illegal and unjust and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.3 In view of the above submissions, Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant urges before the Court that present Appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Court may be set aside and the accused my be convicted. 6. As against that, Mr. 5.3 In view of the above submissions, Mr. Yuvraj Brahmbhatt, learned APP for the appellant urges before the Court that present Appeal may be allowed and the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Court may be set aside and the accused my be convicted. 6. As against that, Mr. Dholakia, learned Counsel who is, at the request of the Court, assisted the Court on behalf of the respondent accused has drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the informant, while giving first information before the Court has referred the names of independent witnesses, who have tried to intervene at the time of scuffle however, the police has not recorded their statements nor they have examined by the prosecution to prove the case of the prosecution and therefore, Special Court has rightly passed the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and no interference is required to be called for in the impugned judgment and order. 6.1 Mr. Dholakia, learned Counsel for the respondent accused has further submitted that the material contraction was proved from the cross examination of the concerned witnesses to the effect that the words which are used for insulting the complainant were not stated before the Investigating Officer, at the time of recording the FIR. 6.2 Mr. Dholakia, learned Counsel for the respondent accused has submitted that even in the statement also that words were not used and that words were stated first time before the Court and that improvisation is proved through the cross examination of the concerned witnesses and therefore, under such circumstances, the Special Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. He has further submitted that so far as the charge under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act is concerned, it is required to be proved that it is used for the purpose of intentionally insults or intimidates with an intent to humiliate member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. He has submitted that herein present case, from bare perusal of the panchnama, it appears that it is not a public place as it is referred in the statute and therefore also learned Special Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent accused. He has submitted that herein present case, from bare perusal of the panchnama, it appears that it is not a public place as it is referred in the statute and therefore also learned Special Court has not committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondent accused. 6.3 In view of the above submissions, Mr. Dholakia, learned Counsel for the respondent accused urges before the Court that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal may not be disturbed and the same may not be interfered by this Court 7. I have perused the material available on record as well as the documents appended thereto. I have also gone through the record of the appeal as well as impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Special Court. I have also examined the evidence recorded by the Special Court. 8. The issue involved in present Appeal are as under. 9. Whether the Special Court has committed any error while passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal? 10. Whether there is any irregularity or any perversity in the judgment and order passed by the Special Court while acquitting the respondent accused? 11. While exercising the jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. whether the Court has power to interfere with the findings recorded by the Special Court? 12. On perusal of the aforesaid issues, it appears that the Special Court has, after going through the oral evidence led by the prosecution, specifically observed that the independent witnesses, who were present at the time of incident are the first persons and best witnesses, however, reason best known to the prosecution, they are not cited as a witnesses nor examined as a witnesses in the present case. 13. Further, there is material contradiction in the depositions of witnesses i.e. husband of the informant and the daughter of the informant and the improvisation is proved through their cross examination that the facts which are stated before the Court were not stated before the Investigation Officer, at the time of recording their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. 14. So far as the evidence of PW-1 panch witness is concerned, the same has not supported the case of the prosecution. So far as the evidence of PW-6 Dr. So far as the evidence of PW-1 panch witness is concerned, the same has not supported the case of the prosecution. So far as the evidence of PW-6 Dr. Sandhya Aayangar at Exh.21 is concerned, in her deposition she has clearly stated that at the time of examination of the informant, she has not found any injury either over the body or any internal injury in the body and therefore, she has specifically stated before the Court that at time of inspection of the informant, she has not found any injury on the body of the informant. Even no names of the assailants were given by the informant before the doctor. Even in Medical Certificate at Exh.22 the doctor has specifically stated that there was no injury found on the body of the informant and therefore, under such circumstances and after considering the oral as well as documentary evidence and after recording the arguments, the Special Court has not committed any error or any illegally or any irregularity while passing the impugned judgment and order. 15. In paragraph No. 15 and 16, the Special Court has specifically dealt with the contentions raised by the parties to the proceedings and after considering the same, the findings were recorded at paragraph No. 17 and 18 and therefore, Special Court was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. It is required to be noted herein that the Special Court has specifically observed that the information to Amratbhai Parmar, who is husband of the informant, was given by his wife and daughter, and said Amratbhai Parmar was not an eye witness and therefore, he was not aware that what was actually happened. Under such circumstances, the depositions of all the three witnesses were considered by the Special Court, after taking due care and caution and therefore, it cannot be said that the Special Court has brushed aside the depositions of all the three witnesses, merely because they are the interested and the relatives of the injured informant. Under such circumstances, the depositions of all the three witnesses were considered by the Special Court, after taking due care and caution and therefore, it cannot be said that the Special Court has brushed aside the depositions of all the three witnesses, merely because they are the interested and the relatives of the injured informant. In fact, the Special Court has dealt with the same by considering the oral and the documentary evidence and the materiel contradictions were proved and are serious in nature, which goes to the root of the matter more particularly, so far as the allegation qua Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act is concerned and therefore, under such circumstances, the Special Court has rightly dealt with the contentions raised by the prosecution and evaluated the evidence in accordance with law and in consonance with the settled legal principle. 16. Now, so far as the Appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal is concerned, the Appellate Court has ample power to reexamine, reevaluate and re-look the evidence of the witnesses and if ultimately the appellate court found that there was any illegality or any perversity in the judgment recorded by the Special Court, then the appellant court can certainly exercise the jurisdiction and reverse the findings recorded by the Special Court. However, in the present case there is no any illegality or any perversity found in the judgment and order of the Special Court. 17. It is also now well settled that while exercising powers under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. if the trial/Special Court while passing the order has committed any illegality or any perversity or has exceeded the jurisdiction, unless and until such facts come on record, the Court is very slow while dealing with an acquittal appeal. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a series of judgments enunciated the principles while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378 against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is inasmuch as re-appreciate the evidence, view or re-consider the evidence and if the Court finds that there is any illegality or any irregularity in the judgment then in that case only, the Court has power to entertain the appeal and interfere with the order of acquittal. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. The scope and principles are enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chandrappa and others Vs. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 , more particularly paragraphs 42 and 43, which was subsequently reaffirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court Rajesh Prasad Vs. State of Bihar and another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 , wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has enunciated the general principles in case of acquittal, more particularly in paragraph 26 the general principles are set out by the Hon’ble Apex Court based upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Hence, I am in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the Special Court. 18. It is also worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 2024 SC 2252 : (2024) 8 SCC 149 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held and observed in Paras-37 to 40 as under: “37. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering various earlier judgments and held as below: “29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: [Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] “42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes” etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. (3) Various expressions, such as “substantial and compelling reasons, good and sufficient grounds, very strong circumstances, distorted conclusions, glaring mistakes” etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” 38. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. as follows: “8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence. 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence. 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record. 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible. 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.” 39. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles: (a) That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity. (b) That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record. (c) That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 40. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 19. The Court has framed the general guild lines and principles while exercising the power under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the acquittal and under the general guild lines issued by the Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that present appeal does not deserve to be entertained and the same requires to be dismissed. 20. Further, on perusal of the impugned judgment and order of the Special Court, it clearly transpires that the Special Court has taken into consideration all the facts while acquitting the accused. It also appears from the impugned judgment and order that the Special Court has appreciated the entire evidence in its true perspective and has come to the right conclusion in acquitting the accused. 21. Accordingly, present appeal is hereby dismissed. 22. Bail bond if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned Court forthwith.