JUDGMENT : S.V. Pinto, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order passed by the learned 6 th (Ad-hoc) Special Judge (Atrocity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Special Case (Atrocity) No.1 of 2012 dated 06.06.2014, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.P.Act) and Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’). 1.1. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. The complainant Savitaben, wife of Rambhai Lakhabhai Bhajgotar, was residing at Dalitwas, village Meghpur, Taluka Veraval, and on 10.05.2011, while she was at her house and doing housework, at around 7.30pm, the accused no.2 had filled his sugarcane in one tractor which was being driven by one Sarmanbhai Naranbhai Ahir and was walking in front of the tractor, which was in his ownership. When the tractor passed by the house of the complainant, it damaged the front portion of the house of the complainant and she told the tractor driver to drive the tractor properly. The accused no.2 got angry and abused the complainant and telephoned his father, the accused no.1 and called him and the accsued no.1came with an axe, which was fitted in an iron pipe. Both the accused illegally trespassed into her house and the accused no.1 assaulted her and gave two blows on her back with the iron pipe that was fixed on the axe. The accused also caught her blouse and pulled her and dragged her, as a result of which, her blouse tore and as she shouted, her brother-in-law Govind Lakha came and intervened and saved her. The accused also caught her blouse and pulled her and dragged her, as a result of which, her blouse tore and as she shouted, her brother-in-law Govind Lakha came and intervened and saved her. The accused assaulted her brother-in-law Govind Lakha and hurled caste slurs against him and threatened to kill them, and thereafter, took the tractor and went away. The 108 ambulance was called and the complainant and her brother-in- law had gone for treatment at the Government Hospital, Veraval and the complainant Savitaben, wife of Rambhai Lakhabhai Bhajgotar filed the complaint at the Prabhaspatan Police Station under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC, Section 135 of the B.P.Act and Section 3(1)(x)of the Atrocity Act, which came to be registered at Prabhaspatan Police Station, I-CR No.45 of 2011. 2.2. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.5 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.6 and Exh.7 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and produced 18 documentary evidences in support of the case. 3.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.58, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned Trial Court has not considered the direct or indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in apperciating the seriousness and the gravity of the offences and should not have adopted a casual, callous and routine approach. That the reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper and are perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Heard learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant – State, learned advocate Mr.Nirad D.Buch for the respondent nos.1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr.Vishvesh Acharya for the respondent no.3. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 6. Learned APP Ms.C.M.Shah for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.Vishvesh Acharya for the respondent no.3 have taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused. 7. Learned advocate Mr.Nirad D.Buch for the respond- ent nos.1 and 2 has jointly submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no in- terference of this Court is required in the impugned judgement and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and have urged this Court to reject the appeal. 8. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observa- tions of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 : AIR 2006 SC 831 , this Court stated; "While deciding an appeal against acquittal, the power of the Appellate Court is no less than the power exercised while hearing appeals against conviction. In both types of appeals, the power exists to review the entire evidence. However, one significant difference is that an order of acquittal will not be interfered with, by an appellate court, where the judgment of the trial court is based on evidence and the view taken is reasonable and plausible. It will not reverse the decision of the trial court merely because a different view is possible. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) …….. The appellate court will also bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court". (emphasis supplied) …….. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge;] (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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 ac- quittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of language' to emphasize 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 available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be pre- sumed 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. 9. 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. 9. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the learned Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the learned Trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must. 10. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has examined PW-1 Gailabhai Somabhai Bhajgotar is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh.12. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 10.1. PW-2 Menshibhai Varjangbhai Bamaniya is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama produced at Exh.15 and Exh.16 respectively. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 10.2. PW-3 Dr. Mayur Bipinchandra Gauwdana examined at Exh.17, is the Medical Officer who was on duty at the Government Hospital, Veraval on 10.05.2011. 10.1. PW-2 Menshibhai Varjangbhai Bamaniya is the panch witness of the arrest panchnama produced at Exh.15 and Exh.16 respectively. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 10.2. PW-3 Dr. Mayur Bipinchandra Gauwdana examined at Exh.17, is the Medical Officer who was on duty at the Government Hospital, Veraval on 10.05.2011. The witness has stated that around 9.30 pm, Govindbhai Lakhabhai Bhajgotar was brought for treatment, and in the history, he had stated that two persons had assaulted him between 7:00pm to 8:00pm. The persons, who had assaulted him, were Naran Devshi and Devshi Govind and he was assaulted with fists and blows and had complained of pain in the stomach and back. On examination, no visible injuries were found and the witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh.18, OPD case paper at Exh.20 and indoor case paper at Exh.22. On the same day, at the same time, Savitaben Lakhabhai Bhajgotar was also brought for treatment with a history of assault by Naran Devshi and Devshi Govind. She had complained of pain in the back and chest, but no visible injuries were found. The witness has produced the medical certificate at Exh.19, outdoor case paper at Exh.21 and the indoor case paper at Exh.23. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that if no visible injury is found, it could also mean that the pain was imaginary and on examination of both the patients, no injuries were found on them. 10.3. PW-4 Savitaben Rambhai Bhajgotar examined at Exh.35 is the complainant, who has supported the contents of the complaint at Exh.36. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she had never met the accused before the incident and she was assaulted with the axe three to four times. After one blow, she had fallen down and she had gone to the hospital at around 9:30pm. She was admitted for one night at the hospital, but she did not speak anything to any doctor. She had given her oral complaint, but had not gone to the police station and when the incident occurred, there was a lot of shouting and one could not hear what was being said by whom. At the time of the incident, she was alone at home and she does not know the registration number of the tractor and she did not give her torn blouse to the police. At the time of the incident, she was alone at home and she does not know the registration number of the tractor and she did not give her torn blouse to the police. 10.4. PW-5 Maliben Alabhai Bhajgotar examined at Exh.39 is an eye witness to the incident and she has stated that Savitaben was being assaulted by Govind Rana and the pipe of Gauriben was broken by Govind Rana with his tractor. 10.5. PW-6 Lakshmiben Ramjibhai Bhajgotar examined at Exh.40 is also an eyewitness to the incident as per the case of the prosecution and the witness has stated that she was going for a wedding at Kala Pitha's house and the tractor filled with sugarcane of the accused no.2 passed by the house of the complainant and the water pipe was broke. The tractor was driven by the accused no.2 and as the complainant told the tractor driver to drive the tractor slowly, the accused no.2 called his father, the accused no.1 came with an axe and they entered into the house of the complainant and assaulted her on her back. In the cross-examination, the witness has stated that Govind Lakha, Rama Lakha, Manjuben etc. had come for the wedding and when they all had gathered, they decided that she would be a witness in the case and that Savitaben would file the complaint. 10.6. PW-7 Govindbhai Lakhabhai Bhajgotar examined at Exh.41 is the injured witness and he has stated that Sarman Devshi was driving the tractor with the sugarcane which passed by the house of Gauriben and the tiles fell down and the water pipe broke, and hence, his sister-in-law Savitaben was assaulted by the accused. He intervened and they abused him and threatened to kill him and the accused no.1 assaulted the complainant with the handle of the axe on her back and assaulted him with fists and blows. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that there was a marriage at Kala Pitha's house and they all had gone for food and Gauriben Lakhabhai, Maliben Halabhai, Lakshmiben Ramjibhai etc. had also gone for the wedding, and at the time of the incident, he was in the village working at the place of Ebabhai Naranbhai Ahil. 10.7. PW-8 Umarbhai Ibabhai Chovat examined at Exh.43 is the P.S.I., Prabhaspatan, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant. had also gone for the wedding, and at the time of the incident, he was in the village working at the place of Ebabhai Naranbhai Ahil. 10.7. PW-8 Umarbhai Ibabhai Chovat examined at Exh.43 is the P.S.I., Prabhaspatan, who has recorded the complaint of the complainant. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the complainant did not state the caste slurs used by the accsued at the time of filing of the complaint. 10.8. PW-9 Vinubhai Karsanbhai Dayatar examined at Exh.45 is the P.S.O., who has registered the complaint. 10.9. PW-10, Vikramsinh Dashrathsinh Gohil examined at Exh.54 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. In the cross- examination, the witness has admitted that Maliben did not state that Govindbhai Rana was assaulting the complainant and Lakshmiben did not state that Naranbhai, the accused no.1, was driving the tractor. Witness Govind Lakha did not state that Sarmanbhai Devshibhai was driving the tractor. 11. On minute perusal of the evidence of the prosecution on record, as per the evidence, the complainant has stated that she was assaulted by the accused, who had trespassed into her house with an axe, which was fixed on an iron pipe and she was assaulted with the pipe on her back. But as per the evidence of PW-3, Dr. Mayur Bipinchandra Gaudana, the medical officer at Community Health Centre, Veraval and the documents produced by the witness at Exh.18 to Exh.23, no injuries were found on the complainant Savitaben Lakhabai and witness Govindbhai Lakhabai. The incident has occurred as per the case of the prosecution in a residential area and the complainant has stated in the complaint that the tractor was driven by Sarmanbhai Naranbhai and he is an eye witness to the incident, but the prosecution has not examined Sarmanbhai Naranbhai as a witness. The incident has occurred as the pipe which was in the front portion of the house of the complainant was broken by the tractor which was filled with sugarcane belonging to the accused no.2, but no mudamal or broken pipe was recovered by the Investigating Officer and as per the case of the prosecution, the accused caught hold of the blouse of the complainant and dragged her, as a result of which, the blouse tore, but no torn blouse has been recovered during investigation. If the medical certificates produced at Exh.18 and Exh.19 are produced, no weapons have been used and the injured complainant Savitaben Lakhabhai and Govindbhai Lakhabai have both stated that they were assaulted by fists. As per the complaint produced at Exh.36, the complainant has stated that her brother-in-law Govind Lakha came and intervened and saved her, but in the deposition before the trial court, the complainant does not say that her brother-in-law Govind Lakha had come and saved her. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant Savitabhai Lakhabai and witness Govindbhai Lakhabai and there is a lot of exaggeration in the deposition of the complainant. The say of the complainant is not supported by any medical evidence and PW-7 Govindbhai Lakhabai has in the cross-examination admitted that he was working at Ebabhai Naranbhai Ahir's place on the date of the incident and he came home in the evening. There are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant and other witnesses and the prosecution has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubts. 12. In view of the above, the learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence in proper perspective and there does not appear to be any infirmity and illegality in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Trial Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned Trial Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order and the present appeal is devoid of merits and resultantly, the same is dismissed. 13. The impugned judgment and the order passed by the learned 6 th (Ad-hoc) Special Judge (Atrocity) and Additional Sessions Judge, Veraval in Special Case No.1 of 2012 (Atrocity) dated 06.06.2014 is hereby confirmed. 14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned learned Trial Court forthwith.