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 2nd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhrangadhra (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 9/2006 on 12.01.2012 whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(2), 147, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 135 of the B.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 13.10.2005, at around 01.00 am, the accused formed an unlawful assembly and armed themselves with swords and assaulted the complainant, abused him and threatened to kill him. The accused also hurled derogating caste slurs against him and the complainant - Rajan Jagdishbhai Solanki filed a complaint at the Dhrangadhra City Police Station under Section 323, 504, 506(2), 147, 148, 149, 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 25(1)BA, 27(1) of the Arms Act and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act which came to be registered as Dhrangadhra Police Station I – C.R. No. 93/2005. 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dhrangadhra and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Surendranagar at Dhrangadhra as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case No. 9/2006. 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. 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. 4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 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 13 witnesses and produced 11 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. 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. Ashish Dagli for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 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. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Aditya Jadeja for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 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. Learned advocate Mr. Ashish Dagli for the respondents has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and no interference is required hence, the appeal may 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 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. 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". 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. 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 presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and it has finally culminated when a case ends in an acquittal. 8. 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. 9. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined eleven witnesses. PW1 - Shaktisinh Ranjitsinh Zala examined at Exh. 9 and PW2 - Pinakin Vinodrai examined at Exh. 11 are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama which is produced at Exh. 10. Both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 9.1 PW3 - Rajan Jagdishbhai Solanki examined at Exh. 20 is the complainant who has stated that on the day of the incident, he along with his friend Deepak and two other friends had gone to the DCW Quarters to watch Garba. At the time of the incident, he had come out of the Garba to drink water and he had mobile no. 9924006479 with him and his friend Anil called him on the mobile to tell him that his elder brother was being assaulted. When he went inside, he saw 20 to 25 persons including the accused assaulting the elder brother of his friend Anil. They had a revolver and baseball bats with them and they hurled derogatory caste slurs against them. He was assaulted on the head and hand with a baseball bat and an iron rod and with a sword on the stomach and he had filed the complaint. The FIR is produced at Exh. 22. During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that his uncle Jaswantbhai has filed a case under the Atrocity Act and Gunwantbhai - the son of his uncle Baljibhai has also filed a case under the Atrocity Act against seven people. The FIR is produced at Exh. 22. During the cross examination, the witness has admitted that his uncle Jaswantbhai has filed a case under the Atrocity Act and Gunwantbhai - the son of his uncle Baljibhai has also filed a case under the Atrocity Act against seven people. The witness has stated that there are persons who are organizing the Garba and there are persons who are responsible for the security of the DCW Company and there were security guards present at the time of the incident. He does not know from which number Anil called from and Anil did not name his elder brother. At the time of the incident, there were 25 persons present with weapons and in the police complaint he did not mention that he had mobile no. 9924006479 with him. The witness has produced his caste certificate at Exh. 21. 9.2 PW4 - Jaswantbhai Amarshibhai Solanki examined at Exh. 24 is the grandfather of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that on the date of the incident, he was informed by someone that his grandson was injured and he went with his scooter to the place of incident and on the way he met 20 to 25 persons and he was informed that his grandson was taken to the Police Station. He went to the Police Station and saw his grandson in the lock-up and he was unconscious and his whole body was bleeding and his grandson told him that the police had assaulted him. He had also told him that while he had gone to intervene, when the accused were assaulting one boy, they all assaulted him. 9.3 PW5 - Sureshbhai Nanjibhai examined at Exh. 26 is the eyewitness to the incident as per the case of the prosecution and he has stated that he and his friend Pranav and his brother Anil and other friends had gone to see Garba and the complainant Rajan Jagdishbhai had also come to watch Garba. Some Darbar persons came and asked them why they had come to see the Garba and they had sticks, swords, pipes, etc. in their hands and they started assaulting them. They did not assault him or his brother Anil and nobody had a revolver in their hand. Some Darbar persons came and asked them why they had come to see the Garba and they had sticks, swords, pipes, etc. in their hands and they started assaulting them. They did not assault him or his brother Anil and nobody had a revolver in their hand. They assaulted the complainant and thereafter they all ran away and he does not know what had happened thereafter. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he had gone to the Police Station to file the complaint on 13.10.2005 and he and the complainant Rajan have filed two separate complaints for the same incident. The complainant Rajanbhai is not his friend and at the place of incident, it was very crowded. 9.4 PW6 - Anil Nanjibhai examined at Exh. 30 is the friend of the complainant and brother of eyewitness Suresh and he has stated that the incident had occurred between 12 and 1 at the DCW Company Ground and he had gone to see Garba along with his brother and others and when they started playing the Garba, they were asked to leave as they were of a particular caste. They did not go and some persons came and tried to assault them and hence he ran away. They assaulted him and his brother but he does not know anything and from his mobile he phoned the complainant and told him that there was a fight going on. He ran away home and his father was present and he told his father about the incident and thereafter he did not go back to the place of incident. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that after he reached home, he did not go out and he does not know what had occurred thereafter or who all were present at the time of the incident. 9.5 PW7 - Vikramsinh Ajitsinh Parmar examined at Exh. 35 was working as the Head Constable at Dhrangadhra Police Station and was in police arrangement along with Police Inspector - M.B. Amrutia for the Navratri Celebrations. At around 24.00 hours, they received information that there was a fight going on at the DCW Garba and they went to that place and found a crowd of people quarrelling. A long-haired boy was being beaten up by a stick and they took him in the government vehicle for treatment. At around 24.00 hours, they received information that there was a fight going on at the DCW Garba and they went to that place and found a crowd of people quarrelling. A long-haired boy was being beaten up by a stick and they took him in the government vehicle for treatment. They came to know that the long-haired boy was the grandson of Jaswantbhai Solanki named Rajan and he was teasing and making obscene gestures and had quarrelled with Karansinh Jadeja and others. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that he does not exactly know who was assaulting whom and it had come to notice that the complainant was behaving in an obscene manner for the last two to three days. He did not see any of the accused with any weapons at the place of incident. 9.6 PW8 - Mansukhbhai Bhagwanjibhai Amrutiya is the Police Inspector who was in patrolling in Navratri Bandobast on the date of incident. The witness has stated that they were informed that a crowd of people had gathered at the DCW Colony and they went to the place and found one person injured on the face and he had taken him to the hospital. The witness is not an eyewitness to the incident and in the cross-examination has admitted that he does not know between whom the assault had taken place. 9.7 PW9 - Usmanbhai Alimiya Qureshi examined at Exh. 37 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 38. 9.8 PW10 – Dr. Sanjaykumar Ramjisingh examined at Exh. 41 is the Medical Officer who was on duty at CU Shah Medical College and Hospital, Surendranagar on 13.10.2005. The witness has stated that Rajan Jagdishbhai Solanki was brought for treatment on 13.10.2005 and in the history he had stated assault injury at around 12.30 am. He was admitted as an indoor patient and on examination he had complained of painful swelling over the left parietal and there was prominence 6 cm x 6 cm, CLW 1.5 cm x 0.25 cm over the right side of forehead just above the eyebrow with mild periorbital edema and hematoma, subconjunctival hemorrhage temporaly, multiple contusions over the back swelling and tenderness over the right upper mid third, swelling on the right hand mid third and right foreamtenderness on the right wrist. His x-rays and CTs brain were done and a USG Sonography was done and no abnormality was detected and he was referred to the higher centre for neurological opinion. In the cross examination the witness has stated that the patient did not name any person who had assaulted him, the place at which he was assaulted or the weapon which he was assaulted in the history. The injuries that were caused could be caused by hard and blunt substance and the CT scan x-ray and sonography were normal. The witness has admitted that if a person was pushed in a crowd and he falls to the ground, he would sustain injuries as the patient. 9.9 PW11 - Keshavlal Vallabhbhai Vadher examined at Exh. 43 and PW13 - Vanrajsinh Juvansinh Gohil examined at Exh. 48 are the Investigating Officers who have narrated the procedure undertaken by them during investigation. PW11 - Keshavlal Vallabhbhai Vadher in the cross examination has admitted that Sureshbhai Nanjibhai Makwana had filed a complaint which was registered at I – C.R. No. 93 of 2005. PW13 - Vanrajsinh Juvansinh Gohil during the cross examination has admitted that there was a complaint filed at the City Police Station against the complainant that he was creating a nuisance in the garba. 9.10 PW12 - Harshadkumar Premshankar Dave is the Police Inspector who has registered the complaint of the complainant. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it is the case of the complainant that on 13.10.2005 at around 12.30, his friend Anilbhai had phoned him to tell him that his brother was being assaulted by some person of the darbar community inside the garba and he went inside and found them assaulting him but PW5 Sureshbhai Nanjibhai examined at Exh. 26 has not stated any such incident. He has stated that he saw the people assaulting the complainant and PW6 - Anil Nanjibhai has stated that he had informed the complainant that his brother was being assaulted but he went home and then did not go out thereafter. The conduct of PW6 - Anilbhai Nanjibhai is suspicious as if his brother was being assaulted he would not have gone home and he would have gone to the Police Station or informed his father or other elders about the incident. The conduct of PW6 - Anilbhai Nanjibhai is suspicious as if his brother was being assaulted he would not have gone home and he would have gone to the Police Station or informed his father or other elders about the incident. There are major contradictions in the evidence of the complainant PW3 - Rajan Jagdishbhai Solanki, PW5 - Suresh Nanjibhai and PW6 Anil Nanjibhai and in the evidence of PW7 - Vikramsinh Ajitsinh Parmar and PW11 - Keshavlal Vallabhbhai Vadher it has come on record that there were complaints against the complainant that he was making obscene gestures and creating a nuisance in the Garba and a number of people had caught and assaulted him. There was also a complaint filed against him and it appears that the police had caught him and brought him to the Police Station and he was assaulted by the crowd of people as he was creating a nuisance in the Garba. PW5 - Sureshbhai Nanjibhai had also filed a complaint about the same incident and a ‘B’ Summary has been filed in that matter. Moreover, if the complaint is perused, the complainant has stated that there was somebody with a revolver but no such revolver has been seized by the police during investigation. There are major exaggerations in the version of the complainant and there are major contradictions in the depositions of the complainant, the eyewitness and other witnesses. 11. 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. 12. 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 the learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Dhrangadhra in Special Case No. 9/2006 on 12.01.2012 is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.