JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special (SC/ST) Case No. 31/2014 on 31.12.2015, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the G.P. Act and Sections 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short). 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 24.08.2014, at around 06.30 pm, the accused entered into the house of the complainant – Sangeetaben - wife of Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela at village Nani Khadol and abused the complainant and the accused no. 1 slapped her two to three times. The complainant Sangeetaben came outside of her house and witness Govindbhai intervened and the accused hurled caste slurs against both of them. Her husband Deepakkumar asked them not to hurl abuses and the accused no. 2 assaulted Deepakkumar with a stick on the fingers of the right hand and right leg and caused him injuries. The complainant Sangeetaben - wife of Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela filed a complaint at the Mahudha Police Station under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the GP Act which came to be registered at Mahudha Police Station I - CR No. 88 of 2014. The complainant Sangeetaben - wife of Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela filed a complaint at the Mahudha Police Station under Sections 452, 323, 504, 506(2) 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act and Section 135 of the GP Act which came to be registered at Mahudha Police Station I - CR No. 88 of 2014. 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 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kheda at Nadiad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Kheda at Nadiad as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special (SC/ST) Case No. 31/2014. 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. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 4, 5 and 6 respectively, wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and produced 8 documentary evidences on record in support of their case and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded. 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them. 3. 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit all the accused from the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment 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 the cross-examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favor of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgment and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal, and without any basis in the eyes of the law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent 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 Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. A.S. Timbalia for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. 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 Mr. Aditya Jadeja has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and submitted that the complainant has fully supported the facts of his complaint. The impugned judgement and order is perverse and learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences. 6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals 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 Vs. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2007 (4) SCC 415 , wherein, the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. State of M.P. (2006) 10 SCC 313 , 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". 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 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. (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. 7. The law with regard to acquittal appeals is well crystallized and in acquittal appeals, there is 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. 8. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined eleven witnesses. PW1 – Dr. Vikasbhai Vitthalbhai Desai examined at Exh. 9 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at the Community Health Centre, Mahudha on 24.08.2014. The witness has stated that he had received a yadi for treating the complainant Sangeetaben Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela which is produced at Exh. 10 on 24.08.2014 at 09.00 pm. He had examined Sangeetaben Deepakbhai Vaghela and in the history she had stated that she was assaulted by Najeermiya with a stick and by hand at around 06.30 pm at Nani Khadol. On examination, she had complained of blunt injury over back and severe pain over back but on examination there was no contusion and no abrasions. She had complained of difficulty in walking. The witness has produced the MLC certificate of Sangeetaben Deepakbhai Vaghela at Exh. 11. On examination, she had complained of blunt injury over back and severe pain over back but on examination there was no contusion and no abrasions. She had complained of difficulty in walking. The witness has produced the MLC certificate of Sangeetaben Deepakbhai Vaghela at Exh. 11. At the same time, Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela was brought for treatment and he too had in the history stated that Salimmiya Issammiya Malek had assaulted him with a stick at Nani Khadol village at around 18.30 hours and on examination there was an abrasion 1 cm x 0.5 cm on the little finger of the right hand. He had complained of pain in his right hand and he was referred for further treatment to the Civil Hospital, Kheda and the certificate of Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela is produced at Exh. 12. In the cross-examination the witness has stated that in the certificate, the weapon by which the injury could be caused is not mentioned and if the hand of a person dashes against a hard and blunt substance the injury found on the hand of Deepakbhai could occur. The witness has admitted that the complaint of pain could be imaginary. 8.1 PW2 – Sangitaben Dipakkumar Vaghela examined at Exh. 16 is the complainant who has supported the contents of the complaint which is produced at Exh. 17. During the cross-examination the witness has stated that due to injury, her husband did not bleed and they did not have any explanation for reaching the Police Station late. The place where she resides is a well populated area and teeming with people and Falguniben came to her house on 25.08.2014 and she has never met Falguniben thereafter. 8.2 PW3 – Parsottambhai Ramabhai Vaghela examined at Exh. 18 is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 19. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. 8.3 PW4 – Kutubuddin Nasiruddin Kaji examined at Exh. 20 and PW5 - Nasir Hussain Muhammadmiya Malik examined at Exh. 22 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 21. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross-examined at length by the learned APP. 8.4 PW6 - Deepakkumar Govindbhai Vaghela examined at Exh. 20 and PW5 - Nasir Hussain Muhammadmiya Malik examined at Exh. 22 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 21. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile and cross-examined at length by the learned APP. 8.4 PW6 - Deepakkumar Govindbhai Vaghela examined at Exh. 23 is the injured witness and husband of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination the witness has stated that his field is at a distance of about 2.5 km away from his house and he had informed the doctor that he was assaulted with a stick on his right leg. 8.5 PW7 - Govindbhai Galabhai Vaghela examined at Exh. 24 is the father-in-law of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross- examination he has admitted that he was aged and had retired and his memory was fading and he had written the date of incident on his hand with a ball-pen. At the time of the incident there were many persons in the surrounding houses and the houses are located near to each other and if a person would shout in one house the persons in other houses could hear the sound. 8.6 PW8 - Kirankumar Govindbhai Vaghela examined at Exh. 25 is the brother-in-law of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross- examination he has stated that he had accompanied his sister-in-law Sangeetaben, his mother Savitaben, his father Govindbhai and his brother Deepakbhai to the Police Station and they had reached the Police Station at around 08.00 pm. 8.7 PW9 - Falguni Rameshbhai Patel examined at Exh. 27 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by her during investigation. In the cross-examination the witness has stated that the complainant has mentioned her surname as Vaghela in the complaint and as per Article 366, it does not come in the list of Scheduled Caste. She did not investigate whether Valmiki, Vaghela and Chauhan surnames come under the Scheduled Caste. The place of offence is the house of the complainant which is a private place and she had not recorded the statements of the neighbours Somabhai Govindbhai and his family members and Maganbhai Nagarbhai and his family members. 8.8 PW10 - Deepakkumar Harishchandra Joshi examined at Exh. The place of offence is the house of the complainant which is a private place and she had not recorded the statements of the neighbours Somabhai Govindbhai and his family members and Maganbhai Nagarbhai and his family members. 8.8 PW10 - Deepakkumar Harishchandra Joshi examined at Exh. 29 is the clerk of the Social Welfare Department, Jilla Panchayat, Godhra. The witness has produced the caste certificate of the complainant at Exh. 31. 8.9 PW11 - Ishwarbhai Narayanbhai Rohit examined at Exh. 32 is the PSO and he has produced the extract of the Station Dairy at Exh. 33. 9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution and as per the case of the complainant, the accused had entered into her house and hurled abuses and caste slurs against her and the incident has occurred inside the house and it is not in public view. Except for the family members i.e. PW6 Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela - the husband of the complainant, PW7 - Govindbhai Galabhai Vaghela - the father-in-law of the complainant and PW8 - Kirankumar Govindbhai Vaghela - the brother-in-law of the complainant, no independent witnesses have been examined. After the incident, the complainant and her husband - Deepakbhai Govindbhai Vaghela had gone to the Community Health Centre, Mahudha for treatment but as per the medical certificates produced at Exh. 11 and Exh. 12, no injuries were found on the complainant and on the leg of the injured witness Deepakbhai. An abrasion was found on the little finger of the right hand but as per the say of the Medical Officer, if a person dashes against any hard and blunt substance, such kind of an injury could occur. As per the evidence of PW1 - Dr. Vikasbhai Vitthalbhai Patel both the patients, i.e. the complainant - Sangeetaben Deepakbhai and the injured witness Deepakbhai Govindbhai were referred to the Civil Hospital at Kheda but there is no evidence as to whether they had gone for further treatment to Kheda and whether the injured witness sustained any fractures on the little finger on his right hand. Vikasbhai Vitthalbhai Patel both the patients, i.e. the complainant - Sangeetaben Deepakbhai and the injured witness Deepakbhai Govindbhai were referred to the Civil Hospital at Kheda but there is no evidence as to whether they had gone for further treatment to Kheda and whether the injured witness sustained any fractures on the little finger on his right hand. Admittedly, the incident has occurred in a residential area and there were other neighbours and other houses adjacent to the place of incident but the Investigating Officer – PW9 - Falguniben Rameshbhai Patel has categorically stated that she did not record the statements of the immediate neighbours Somabhai Govindbhai and his family members and Maganbhai Nagarbhai and his family members. Hence, no evidence of any independent witness has come on record. Even as far as the caste certificate is concerned, it is produced on record at Exh. 31 but the Investigating Officer does not state that she had investigated whether the complainant is in fact a member of the Scheduled Caste and hence there is no cogent and convincing evidence regarding the caste of the complainant. 10. In view of the settled position of law in the decisions of Chandrappa (supra), 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. 11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge and 4 th Additional Sessions Judge, Nadiad in Special (SC/ST) Case No. 31/2014 on 31.12.2015, is hereby confirmed. 12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.