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 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Navsari Camp at Vansda (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 6 of 2009 on 21- 10-2011 , whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and Section Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “Atrocities Act”) and Section 135 of the Gujarat Police Act. 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file as they stood in the original case for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under:- 2.1 On 19-04-2009, at around 9 AM, the complainant Manjuben Bapubhai Kunkana was in front of her house situated in Station Faliya: Navtad, Taluka:Vansda, District: Navsari and at that time, the accused No. 1 came and asked her why her husband was casting glances against her with intention to outrage her modesty. The accused No. 1 took the wooden stick used to wash clothes from the complainant and gave a blow to the complainant with the stick on her head, and the accused No. 2 went into the house and brought a stick and gave a blow on the back of the complainant. The complainant filed the complaint at the Vansda Police Station under Sections 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the IPC), Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1889, which came to be registered as Vansda Police Station vide II – C.R.No.46 of 2009. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Vansda and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Navsari as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (Atrocities) Case No. 6 of 2009. 2.3 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 at Exh. 1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 2 and 3, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced twelve oral and nine documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 33 , the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and state that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from all the charges leveled against them. 3 . Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondents are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant State, learned advocate Mr. Hinren M. Modi appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and learned advocate Mr. Atraya K Trivedi appearing for the respondent No.3- original complainant. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms. Chetna Shah for the appellant-State and learned advocate Mr. Atraya K Trivedi for the respondent No.3 – original complainant have jointly taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned trial Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that the judgments and order has been passed after appreciation of all the evidence and the learned Court has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and hence, the appeal of the appellant-State must be rejected. 7 . At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. 7 . At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under:- Recently, in Kallu v. 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) 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 acquittal. Such phraseologies are more iTimes New Romann 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. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more iTimes New Romann 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 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. 8. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. The learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence and when the learned Trial Court has come to a conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the case beyond reasonable doubts, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets strengthened. There is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appreciation, the view taken by the learned Trial Court was a possible view, there is no reason for the Appellate Court to interfere in the same. 9. In light on the above settled principles of law in acquittal appeals and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 - Dr. Santoshkumar Haridasbhai Adhikari at Exhibit 7 and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at the Cottage Hospital, Vansda on 19.04.2009. The witness has stated that at around 10.10 am, Manjuben B. Patel was brought for treatment and in the history, she had given the history of assault. Santoshkumar Haridasbhai Adhikari at Exhibit 7 and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at the Cottage Hospital, Vansda on 19.04.2009. The witness has stated that at around 10.10 am, Manjuben B. Patel was brought for treatment and in the history, she had given the history of assault. On examination, a red color CLW was found over the backside of the head, which was 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm and a red color swelling 2 cm x 2 cm was found on the left shoulder. The injuries were simple and could be possible by a hard and blunt substance such as a stick or wooden stick used to wash clothes. The witness has produced the medical certificate of Manjuben B. Patel at Exhibit 8 and the Yadi of the Vansda Police Station at Exhibit 9. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that, on the same day, he had treated Kiranben Arvindbhai and Arvindbhai Gulabbhai and they were brought for treatment to the hospital at 10.00 am with the Yadi of Vansda Police Station. In the history, Arvindbhai Gulabbhai had stated that Manjuben Bapubhai and Bapubhai Nagjubhai had assaulted him. The witness has produced the medical certificates of the accused No. 1 - Kiranben Arvindbhai at Exhibit 10 and the medical certificate of the accused No. 2 - Arvindbhai Gulabbhai at Exhibit 11. The accused No. 2 - Arvindbhai Gulabbhai had a red color swelling 3 cm x 3 cm on the frontal part of the head and the injuries on both of them could be by a wooden stick. 9.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 – Kishorbhai Radhansinh Rathva examined at Exhibit 12 is the Clerk, who was working in the office of the Taluka Panchayat, Vansda and he has produced the caste-certificate of the complainant at Exhibit 13. 8.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Ganeshbhai Ramubhai Pawar examined at Exhibit 14 is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 15. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 8.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Radkubhai Navsubhai Birari examined at Exhibit 16 is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 15. The witness has also supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 8.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Radkubhai Navsubhai Birari examined at Exhibit 16 is the panchwitness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exhibit 15. The witness has also supported the case of the prosecution. 8.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 -Mangubhai Ratanbhai Patel examined at Exhibit 17 is the panchwitness of the arrest panchnama produced at Exhibit 18. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and cross examined at length by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 8.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Manjuben Bapubhai Patel examined at Exhibit 19 is the complainant, who has stated that on 19-04-2009, she was going to her field with the labourers and was standing on the road and her workers were doing labor work in the field and at that time the accused No. 2 was making obscene gestures towards her and quarrel had taken place four days prior to the incident. On 19-04-2009, she was going to wash clothes from her and she asked the accused No. 1 why her husband was making obscene gestures towards her and at that time the accused No. 1 came running and took the wooden stick that is used to wash clothes and assaulted her on the left side of her head. She started bleeding and at that time the accused No. 2 came with a stick and assaulted her on her back. As she shouted, her husband came and intervened and saved her. The accused hurled caste-slurs against her and her husband had thereafter taken her to the hospital. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the complainant has admitted that the father of the accused No. 2 and her father-in-law Nagjubhai were doing business together and her father-in-law had given some land to the father of the accused No. 2 . From the time of her marriage which was 14 years prior to the incident, she has seen the accused residing in that place and there are litigation under the Tenancy Act pending between them. Police cases have also been filed by her against the accused and the cause of the quarrel was as the accused was residing in the land. From the time of her marriage which was 14 years prior to the incident, she has seen the accused residing in that place and there are litigation under the Tenancy Act pending between them. Police cases have also been filed by her against the accused and the cause of the quarrel was as the accused was residing in the land. The accused No. 2 has also filed a complaint against her and her husband at the Vansda Police Station and her husband was a Principal of Bhinar High School. 8.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Urmilaben Batukbhai Chaudhary examined at Exhibit 22 was a laborer and working as per the say of the complainant at the time of the incident. The witness has stated that while she was working, there was a quarrel between the complainant and the accused but she does not know who was injured and what words were spoken. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant is her relative and the police had merely asked her name and had written her statement on their own. The complainant Manjuben had accompanied her to Court and at the time of the incident, she was working and she has no knowledge about the incident. 8.7 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Kusumben Amratbhai Deshmukh examined at Exhibit 23 is a neighbor of the complainant, who has stated that the incident has occurred on 19-04-2009 on the road. She was in her house and she heard them quarreling and she ran and came and found that the accused No. 1 was assaulting the complainant with the wooden stick used to wash clothes and the accused No. 2 was assaulting the complainant with a stick. They were abusing her and hurling caste-slurs against her and the complainant was injured. Prior to two days also, they had a quarrel but she does not know the reason for the quarrel. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the husband of the complainant is her uncle and the complainant is her aunt and at the time of the incident she was in her house. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the husband of the complainant is her uncle and the complainant is her aunt and at the time of the incident she was in her house. The witness has also admitted that the accused were residing in a house in the agricultural land for many years and at the time of the incident 10-12 labourers had gathered and there was a loud noise. The accused were also injured and were taken for treatment to the hospital and on the day of her deposition, she was accompanied by the complainant Manjuben to the Court. The witness has also admitted that she had very good relations with the complainant and her husband as they were her aunt and uncle respectively. 8.8 Prosecution Witness No. 9 - Bapubhai Nagjibhai Patel examined at Exhibit 25 is the husband of the complainant and he has stated that on 19-04-2009 at around 09.00 am, he was in his room and he heard some sounds and ran outside and saw that his wife was bleeding. He saw the accused No. 2 with a stick in his hand and the accused No. 1 with a wooden stick used to wash clothes and they were abusing and hurling caste-slurs against his wife. His wife was injured and he had taken her for treatment to the hospital. During cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the accused was residing in his land and has also admitted that his father had given the land to Gulabbhai Gajananbhai Shimpi and they had built a house in that said land. After Gulabbhai had expired, the accused No. 2, who was his son, continued with the business and his father Nagjubhai had expired in the year 2003. Till his father Nagjubhai was living, they did not file any case against the accused and he and his wife have filed other cases against the accused. There is a road in front of the house of the accused to go to the river and when he came out of the house, he only saw his wife bleeding and he did not see anything else. The accused have also filed a case against his wife and him and they were arrested and released on bail. There is a road in front of the house of the accused to go to the river and when he came out of the house, he only saw his wife bleeding and he did not see anything else. The accused have also filed a case against his wife and him and they were arrested and released on bail. The workers had gathered there but they did not say anything. 8.9 Prosecution Witness No. 10 - Daljubhai Shukkarbhai Kunkana examined at Exhibit 26 is a labourer, who was working in the field at the time of the incident and has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he goes to the shop of the accused to buy clothes and the accused are residing in the land for more than 40 years. He had gone for labour work and after the incident the police had merely asked him his name and he does not know what the police had recorded in his statement. The witness has admitted that the complainant Manjuben and her husband Bapubhai had accompanied him to Court on the day of his deposition and the accused were also taken to the hospital for treatment. 8.10 Prosecution Witness No. 11 - Manojsinh Natwarsinh Chavda examined at Exhibit 27 is the P.S.O., who has registered the complaint. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that that the accused No. 1 has filed a case under Sections 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act, on 19-04-2009 at 13.30 hours against the complainant and her husband, which is registered at Vansda Police Station II – C.R.No. 47 of 2009. In that FIR, it is mentioned that, the incident has occurred at around 9.00 AM and the FIR is produced at Exhibit 28. As per the allegations made in the FIR, the accused No. 1 has stated that the complainant Manjuben and her husband Bapubhai had assaulted them with the wooden stick used to wash clothes and had abused them and threatened them. The complainant Manjuben and her husband Bapubhai were arrested and produced before the Magistrate and both the accused had taken treatment at Cottage Hospital on the same day. The complainant Manjuben and her husband Bapubhai were arrested and produced before the Magistrate and both the accused had taken treatment at Cottage Hospital on the same day. 8.11 Prosecution Witness No. 12 - Prithvi Parshottam Mukul examined at Exhibit 29 is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has admitted that the place, where the incident has taken place, is the house of the accused and during investigation, it was found that there were land disputes pending between the parties for a long time. 9 . On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that the offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the BP Act has also been registered by the accused No. 1 against the complainant Manjuben and her husband Bapubhai at Vansda Police Station vide II-C.R.No. 47 of 2009 and the place of incident is in front of the house of the accused. It appears that the complainant and her husband had come towards the house of the accused and the assault has taken place and there are disputes and litigations pending between the parties under the Tenancy Act . The complainant has stated that the accused had used caste-slurs but there are major contradictions in the deposition of the complainant, her husband and the other witnesses and the labourers, who, as per the case of the prosecution, were present and are eye witnesses, have not fully supported the case of the prosecution. Prosecution Witness No. Bapubhai Nagjibhai Patel has categorically stated that he was inside the house at the time of the incident and on hearing the sounds, he came outside and saw his wife bleeding and hence he is not an eyewitness to the incident. What has emerged on record is that, the complainant and her husband wanted the accused to vacate the land given to the father of the accused by the father-in-law of the complainant and the incident has occurred and all the witnesses have stated that the complainant had accompanied them to the Court and they were relatives of the complainant and known to her. 10. 10. In view of the settled position of law, 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. 12. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Special Judge in Special (Atrocity) Case No. 6 of 2009 on 21- 10-2011 , is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.