JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 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 3 rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Atrocity Case No. 16/2007 on 01.06.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 504 and 337 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 respondents are hereinafter referred to as “the accused” 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 The complainant - Jitubhai Dahyabhai Rathod has filed the complaint on 17.03.2007 stating that Deepakbhai Pravinchandra Vyas has a lease for sand mining next to his lease and on 17.03.2007, while he was at his lease along with Nanubhai Magjibhai Dodiya Patel, Kamabhai Delad, Punabhai and Bikhubhai; Deepakbhai Vyas and his men including Chandubhai Govindbhai Odh and Gopalbhai Dodiyabhai came and abused him and used caste slurs. That they threw stones and Deepakbhai Vyas had a stick in his hand and he gave three blows with the stick to him out of which one blow was on the head and two blows were on the hands. That they assaulted the other men with fists and also assaulted Nanubhai with a stick and broke his left hand and abused all of them. At that time, persons working at the place of Dhirubhai Dahyabhai Rathod came and saved them and they were taken for treatment to the Government Hospital at Kamrej. The complainant filed the complaint at Kamrej Police Station which was registered at I - C.R. No. 64/2007 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 337 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. The complainant filed the complaint at Kamrej Police Station which was registered at I - C.R. No. 64/2007 under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 337 and 504 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the 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 Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Surat as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No.16/2007. 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. 10 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 11 and 12 respectively, wherein, both 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 Sr. No. PW Name of the witness Exh. 1 1 Ketanbhai Keshavlal 17 2 2 Champakbhai Thakorbhai 15 3 3 Rahulkumar Govindbhai Rathod 17 4 4 Rahulkumar Govindbhai Rathod 19 5 5 Jayantilal Kuvarji Gajjar 22 6 6 Amitbhai Ranchhodbhai Oza 26 7 7 Jitubhai Dahyabhai Rathod 29 8. 8 Nanubhai Magjibhai 34 9. 9 Punabhai Gurujibhai Rathod 37 10. 10 Vikeshbhai Gokulbhai Rathod 38 11. 11 Ashokumar Ramjibhai Chaudhary 39 12. 12 Shantilal Baburav Chaudhary 45 13. 13 Hasmukhbhai Sartanbhai Ninama 48 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Panchnama of place of offence 14 2 Panchnama 16 3 Panchnama 20 4 Arrest panchnama of accused no. 1 21 5 Medical Certificate of the complainant 23 6 Medical Certificate of Nanubhai Maganbhai 24 7 Medical Certificate of Jitendrabhai 27 8 Complaint 30 9 Caste Certificate 31 10 Arrest panchnama of accused no. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Panchnama of place of offence 14 2 Panchnama 16 3 Panchnama 20 4 Arrest panchnama of accused no. 1 21 5 Medical Certificate of the complainant 23 6 Medical Certificate of Nanubhai Maganbhai 24 7 Medical Certificate of Jitendrabhai 27 8 Complaint 30 9 Caste Certificate 31 10 Arrest panchnama of accused no. 2 40 11 Medical Certificate of Nanubhai Maganbhai 49 12 Dying Declaration 47 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, 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 stated that a false case has been filed against them. 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 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 doubt 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. Bhargav Pandya, learned advocate Mr. K.H. Daiya for the respondent no. 1, learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah for respondent no. 2 and learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel for learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas on behalf of the 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 Mr. K.H. Daiya for the respondent no. 1, learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah for respondent no. 2 and learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel for learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas on behalf of the 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 Mr. Bhargav Pandya jointly with learned advocate Mr. Sandip Patel for learned advocate Mr. Vaibhav Vyas have 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 and learned advocate has urged this Court to quashed and set aside the same and find the respondents guilty for the offences. 6. Learned advocate Mr. K.H. Daiya for the respondent no. 1 and learned advocate Mr. Kunal Shah for respondent no. 2 have 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 respondents 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 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. 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. 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. 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. That 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. That 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 – Ketanbhai Keshavlal at Exh. 13 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh. 14 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Champakbhai Thakorbhai at Exh. 15 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchama produced at Exh. 16, whereby, the clothes of the complainant were seized by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 9.2 The prosecution has examined Rahulkumar Govindbhai Rathod as PW3 and PW4 at Exhs. 17 and 19 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchama produced at Exh. 18 which is the reconstruction panchnama where the accused no. 2 showed the place of offence and the panchnama at Exh. 19 whereby the accused no. 1 showed the place of offence. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Dr. Jayantilal Kuwarjibhai Gajjar at Exh. 22 and the witness is the Medical Officer who was present at Community Health Centre, Kamrej on the date of the incident. The witness has stated that at 02.45 in the afternoon, Jitubhai Rathod came for treatment and in the history, he had stated that he was assaulted today at around 01.00 pm to 01.30 pm on the banks of Tapi River near the Gans Machhi village by 15 to 20 unidentified persons with sticks. On examination, the patient was conscious and he had the following injuries. 1. Tenderness with swelling on left forearm lower 1/3 region? Fracture Ulna radius 2. On examination, the patient was conscious and he had the following injuries. 1. Tenderness with swelling on left forearm lower 1/3 region? Fracture Ulna radius 2. Abrasion on right grat toe on dorsal aspect 2 cm in O clotted blood stain. 3. Abrasion on right 2 nd toe on dorsal and medial side 1 cm in O clotted blood stain. The injuries were sustained by hard and blunt substance and the injured was referred to New Civil Hospital for further orthopaedic opinion and treatment. The medical certificate of the complainant is produced at Exh. 23. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that in the history it was stated that unknown persons had assaulted him. 9.4 The prosecution has examined PW6 – Dr. Amitbhai Ranchhodbhai Oza at Exh. 26 and the witness has stated that on 17.03.2007, he was working as a Medical Officer at Sardar Smarak Hospital at Bardoli when Jitubhai Thakor was brought to him for treatment with alleged history of assault injury by sticks by Mr. Dipakbhai Vyas at around 01.30 pm at Diga, Taluka Kamrej. He has four to six stitches on the head and bandage and he had complained to pain in left palm. The injuries could be sustained by hard and blunt substance. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the injuries were simple and could be sustained by a fall. 9.5 The prosecution has examined PW7 – Jitubhai Dahyabhai Rathod at Exh. 29 and the witness has stated that on 17.03.2007, he was having his lunch and Deepak Vyas, Govindbhai Odh and Gopalbhai Shivrambhai came and abused them and hurled caste slurs to them. All of them had sticks with them and they assaulted him with the sticks. Nanubhai was also assaulted and his hand was fractured. That as his injury on his head started bleeding, all of them ran away and they were taken to the Government Hospital, Kamrej for treatment. The complainant filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 30. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that his mother Bhikhiben has a lease at Machhi village and he is doing the administration of that lease. That one blow was hit to him on the head and four blows were given on the back by Deepakbhai Chandubhai and Gopalbhai. The complainant filed the complaint which is produced at Exh. 30. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that his mother Bhikhiben has a lease at Machhi village and he is doing the administration of that lease. That one blow was hit to him on the head and four blows were given on the back by Deepakbhai Chandubhai and Gopalbhai. That he did not inform the doctor the names of the persons had assaulted him and his complaint was recorded at the hospital. That he had filed a complaint against Deepakbhai Vyas, Gopalbhai, Chandubhai, Govindbhai and two other persons whose name he does not remember. 9.6 The prosecution has examined PW8 – Nanubhai Magjibhai at Exh. 34 and the witness is an eye witness to the incident and he has stated that he is working on a salary of Rs. 100/- per day with Jitubhai at his sand mining lease on the banks of Tapi River and on 17.03.2007 at around 01.30 pm, they along with the others were having their lunch when Deepakbhai Vyas, Chandubhai Govindbhai, Gopalbhai and other persons came and started abusing them. That they threw stones and the labourers ran away and took sticks and assaulted him and Bhikhubhai and Jitubhai was injured on the head and he was assaulted on the hand and they were taken to the Government Hospital at Kamrej for treatment and thereafter to Bardoli for further treatment. During the cross-examination, the witness stated that at the time of the incident, the sand was not properly filled and Jitubhai was abusing everyone. That there are many lease surrounding the lease of Bhikhiben and the lease of Deepak Vyas is on the west side of the lease of Bhikhiben. That Deepakbhai Vyas was present at the time of the incident and he had given the blows with a stick to Jitubhai. That before the Medical Officer, he has stated that 15 to 20 unknown persons and assaulted them. 9.7 The prosecution has examined PW9 – Punabhai Gurujibhai Rathod at Exh. 37 and the witness is the eye witness to the incident who has stated that on 17.03.2007 at around 01.30 pm, he was present at the place of incident along with Bhikhabhai, Nanubhai, Somabhai, Jitubhai, etc. and Jitubhai was shouting at the labourers and Gopalbhai thought that he was abusing him. 37 and the witness is the eye witness to the incident who has stated that on 17.03.2007 at around 01.30 pm, he was present at the place of incident along with Bhikhabhai, Nanubhai, Somabhai, Jitubhai, etc. and Jitubhai was shouting at the labourers and Gopalbhai thought that he was abusing him. The accused had sticks and five persons including Deepakbhai, Gopalbhai, Chandubhai and four to five others came and Deepak Vyas hit a stick on the head of Jitubhai and on his left hand. Nanubhai was also injured on his left hand and his hand was fractured and both them were taken to the Government Hospital, Kamrej for treatment. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness stated that five persons from Kathiyawad came and assaulted Jitubhai and he does not know who those persons from Kathiyawad were. That in his statement before the police, he has not stated the names of the accused and Jitubhai was assaulted by Deepak Vyas with a stick. That Deepakbhai has the lease adjacent to the lease of Bhikhiben and both the lease are in water. 9.8 The prosecution has examined PW10 – Vikeshbhai Gokulbhai Rathod at Exh. 38 and the witness is an eye witness to the incident who has stated that on 17.03.2007 at around 01.30 pm, Jitubhai was shouting at them and at that time, five persons who looked like they were from Kathiyawad came and they thought that Jitubhai was abusing them and they took sticks and assaulted Jitubhai who was injured on the head and on the left hand. Nanubhai intervened and he too was injured on the left hand. The five persons included Gopalbhai, Deepak Vyas, Chandubhai and Govindbhai hurled caste abuses. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he knows Deepakbhai by name and in his statement before the police, he had stated that he does not know any of the accused persons. That he has not stated before the police that the accused had used caste slurs. 9.9 The prosecution has examined PW11 – Ashokumar Ramjibhai Chaudhary at Exh. 39 and the witness is the Mamlatdar who has given the Caste Certificate of the complainant. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the caste certificate is given on the basis of the school leaving certificate. 9.10 The prosecution has examined PW12 – Shantilal Baburav Chaudhary at Exh. 39 and the witness is the Mamlatdar who has given the Caste Certificate of the complainant. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the caste certificate is given on the basis of the school leaving certificate. 9.10 The prosecution has examined PW12 – Shantilal Baburav Chaudhary at Exh. 45 and the witness is the Executive Magistrate who has recorded the dying declaration of the complainant which is produced at Exh. 47. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that when he went to record the dying declaration, the complainant was fully conscious and he could roam about on his own. 9.11 The prosecution has examined PW13 – Hasmukhbhai Sartanbhai Ninama at Exh. 48 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has investigated the offence and has narrated in detail the procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complainant had stated the name of Deepak Praveenchandra Vyas but he is not in the charge-sheet as an accused. The complainant has also stated that Deepak Pravinchandra Vyas had given him five blows with the stick and witness Nanubhai had also stated the same facts. The complainant did not state the exact words that were used by the accused and the lease of the complainant is on the banks of River Tapi. Dahyabhai Naranbhai Machhi - the father of the complainant was a Sarpanch of Machhi village earlier and the complainant was a member and Bhikhiben - the mother of the complainant was the President of Kamrej Taluka and the complainant and all his family members are political leaders in Kamrej area. There is a lot of competition in the lease business and the lease of Deepak Vyas is also situated at the same place. That the witnesses have not stated that the accused used any caste slurs and no charge-sheet is filed against Deepak Vyas. The accused no. 1 - Gopal Bharwad is a member of the Bakshi Panch. 10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution have come on record and the complaint is filed against 15 to 20 persons but the charge-sheet is filed only against two persons. The accused no. 1 - Gopal Bharwad is a member of the Bakshi Panch. 10. On minute dissection of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the infirmities in the evidence of the prosecution have come on record and the complaint is filed against 15 to 20 persons but the charge-sheet is filed only against two persons. In the evidence of the complainant and the other witnesses, the main allegation is made against Deepak Vyas who has assaulted the complainant and the injured witness with sticks and the complainant has categorically stated that Deepak Vyas gave him five blows but the charge-sheet is not filed against Deepak Vyas. The complainant has stated that 15 to 20 persons including the accused and Deepak Vyas had assaulted him with a stick but if the medical evidence about the injuries sustained by complainant are perused, they are all simple injuries and no grievous injuries were sustained by the complainant. In the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it has come on record that the complainant was a politically well-known person in Kamrej area and it appears on the date of the incident that he was abusing his workers and due to a misunderstanding the accused and others came; and they had a scuffle but it appears that the complainant has exaggerated the incident. Moreover, it has come on record that the lease of Deepak Vyas is near the lease of Bhikhiben - the mother of the complainant and the complainant is doing the administration of the lease and was well known to the accused and Deepak Vyas but in the history before the Medical Officer, he has not named any of the assailants and has mainly stated that 15 to 20 persons had assaulted him. Looking to the injuries of the complainant, it appears that if 15 to 20 persons would have assaulted him with sticks, he would have sustained many more grievous injuries and even the say of the complainant that five blows were given to him out of which one blow was on the head and the remaining blows were on the hand and back, no such injuries were found by the Medical Officer. Moreover, the words uttered by specific accused have not come record and the witnesses have also not stated what were the caste slurs and abuses used by the accused. 11. Moreover, the words uttered by specific accused have not come record and the witnesses have also not stated what were the caste slurs and abuses used by the accused. 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 3 rd Additional District and Sessions Judge, Surat in Special Atrocity Case No. 16/2007 on 01.06.2009, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.