JUDGMENT : 1. The present present appeal is 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 the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Deesa (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Case No. 33/2010 on 26.12.2011, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocities Act”). 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he 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 27.09.2009, the complainant - Amrutbhai Sendhabhai Valmiki was sitting at the tea stall of Rambhai Kotak along with Prakashbhai Amthabhai Valmiki, Babubhai Dharmabhai, Valmiki and his wife Kamlaben to drink tea and at that time, the accused Manishbhai Patel who has a Reliance Gas Agency in Jani shopping Centre came and asked him why he had filed an application against him and hurled caste abuses and threw him down from the place where he was sitting. As he started hitting him, his wife and two other persons including the hotel owner - Rambhai intervened and sent Manishbhai away. The complainant filed the complaint at Dhanera Police Station which was registered at II – C.R. No. 3001/2009 under Sections 323 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) Atrocities Act. 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 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shihor and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Banaskantha at Deesa as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Case No. 33/2010. 2.3 The accused was 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 and a charge at Exh. 5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 6 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced the following evidence to bring home the charge against the accused. ORAL EVIDENCE S. No. PW Name of the witness Exh. 1 1 Amrutbhai Sendhabhai 8 2 2 Vasrabhai Dhudabhai Kapdi 10 3 3 Kamlaben w/o Amrutbhai 12 4 4 Rambhai Khilumal Sindhi 13 5 5 Prakashbhai Amthabhai Parmar 14 6 6 Nareshbhai Popatbhai Valmiki 16 7 7 Jagdishkumar Chaturji 17 8 8 Mahendrasinh Ratansinh Rathod 22 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE S. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Complaint 9 2 Panchnama 11 3 Panchnama 15 4 Report 18 5 Investigation 19 6 Special Report 20 7 Caste Certificate 23 8 Order 24 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closingpursis at Exh. 25, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was 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 his behalf and stated that a false case has been filed against him. After the arguments of the learned APP and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned Trial Court by the impugned judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against them. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the learned Trial Court has not considered the oral and documentary evidences in proper perspective and has erred in holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and the caste certificate of the complainant is produced on record. The complainant has fully supported the case of the prosecution and the caste certificate of the complainant is produced on record. The learned Trial Court has not considered the evidences produced on record and even though there is nothing on record that the incident has not occurred, the learned Trial Court has disbelieved the case of the prosecution. 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 and hence, the impugned judgement and order must be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Bhargav Pandya for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. N.P. Chaudhary for the respondents. 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. Bhargav Pandya 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. N.P. Chaudhary for the respondent has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidences and has passed the impugned judgement and order of acquittal which is just and proper and no interference is required in the same. Learned advocate for the respondent has urged this Court to reject the appeal of the appellants. 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, 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. 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. 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. (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. 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 of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 – Amrutbhai Sendhabhai at Exh. 8 and the witness is the complainant who has stated the facts as stated in the complaint. The complaint is filed at Exh. 9 and during the cross-examination, the witness stated that there are a number of shops in the same building and the shop of the accused is about four to five shops away from the tea stall. That the vehicle with gas bottles came from Deesa side and the shop of the accused would come before the hotel. That the accused visits the hotel for tea and before the incident, he did not have any altercation with the accused. That he had never met the accused before the incident and seven to eight cases under the Prohibition Act are filed against him. That the accused visits the hotel for tea and before the incident, he did not have any altercation with the accused. That he had never met the accused before the incident and seven to eight cases under the Prohibition Act are filed against him. That eight to nine cases under the Gambling Act are also filed against him and whenever he was at the tea stall, he never had any alteration with the accused. That a theft case has also been filed against him. That in the complaint, he has not stated that the accused had assaulted him with a pipe and had threatened to hit him with the vehicle and the names mentioned in the examination-in-chief have not been mentioned in his complaint or the statement before the police. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Vashrambhai Dhudabhai Kapdi at Exh. 10 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh. 11 but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Kamlaben w/o Amrutbhai at Exh. 12 and the witness is the wife of the complainant and she has stated that when she was coming back from her work, in front of the gas shop, her husband and the owner of the gas shop were fighting and her husband was taken to the hospital. That he was threatened saying that he would be hit by a vehicle. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and during the cross-examination, she has stated that when they had gone to drink tea, there were a number of persons there and the gas shop is for five to six shops away from the tea stall. The fight had occurred in front of the gas shop as they were asked to sit aside and the vehicle with the gas bottles was to come. That many cases under the Prohibition Act are filed against her husband and he consumes liquor and creates a nuisance and the gas shop owner had told him not to create a nuisance at that place and her husband had started shouting at the gas shop owner and at that time, gas shop owner had to call the police. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 –Rambhai Khilumal Sindhi at Exh. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 –Rambhai Khilumal Sindhi at Exh. 13 and the witness has stated that he had a tea stall and a fight had taken place there, and he had separated them. That nothing else had occurred and no abuses were used and he has not heard any abusive words. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Prakashbhai AmthabhaiParmar at Exh. 14 and the witness is the eye witness to the incident but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned APP but he has not supported the incident. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant belongs to his caste and no such incident has occurred. That he reached the place after the complainant had fallen down and he did not inquire what was the fight about. 9.5 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Nareshbhai Popatbhai Valmiki at Exh. 16 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence produced at Exh. 11. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he was present at the place of incident when the police had come and asked him to affix his thumb impression on a paper which was already written and he had not dictated anything to the police but had merely fixed his thumb impression. 9.6 The prosecution has examined PW7 –Jagdishkumar Chaturji at Exh. 17 and the witness is the PSO, Dhanera Police Station who has recorded the complaint of the complainant which is produced at Exh. 9. 9.7 The prosecution has examined PW8 – Mahendrasinh Ratansinh Rathod at Exh. 22 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness stated that he did not investigate the application which was given by the complainant earlier and no documents regarding the investigation of the application have been produced on record. 10. During cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness stated that he did not investigate the application which was given by the complainant earlier and no documents regarding the investigation of the application have been produced on record. 10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution have come on record and as per the case of the complainant, the incident has occurred in front of the tea stall but there are no independent witnesses to support the case of the complainant. PW3 – Kamlaben Amrutbhai Sendhabhai who is the wife of the complainant and an eye witness to the incident has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution and stated that the fight has occurred in front of the shop of the accused. The witness has also admitted that at the time of the incident, the complainant had consumed liquor and he was making a nuisance and was sitting in front of the shop of the accused and the accused told him to move away from there as his vehicle with the gas bottles was arriving. The other eye witness is PW5 - Prakashbhai Amthabhai Parmar and PW4 – Rambhai Khilumal Sindhi in front of whose tea stall, the incident is said to have occurred and both have turned hostile and there is nothing on record to prove that any such incident had ever occurred. As per the complainant, the incident has occurred because he had filed an application against the accused and the accused came and asked him why he had filed an application against him but no such application has come on record and the Investigating Officer has not investigated regarding this issue. Moreover, the complainant has categorically stated that he had never met the accused earlier and never had any verbal altercation with the accused. The complainant has also admitted that he has eight to nine cases filed under the Prohibition Act and eight to nine case filed under the Gambling Act and also a case of theft filed against him and there is no iota of evidence to support the case of the complainant. 11. The complainant has also admitted that he has eight to nine cases filed under the Prohibition Act and eight to nine case filed under the Gambling Act and also a case of theft filed against him and there is no iota of evidence to support the case of the complainant. 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. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Deesa in Special Case No. 33/2010 on 26.12.2011, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.