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 the learned Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special (ATRO) Case No. 4 of 2008 on 01.04.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 504 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter referred to as " IPC " for short) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1881. 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 accused No. 2 Jayantibhai Mohanbhai Umrethia (Patel) had slapped Vijay the son of the complainant Vallabhbhai Veerabhai Makwana four times on his cheek and on 30-11-2007 between 19:00 to 19:15 hours, the complainant went to scold the accused about the incident with his son and at that time the accused abused the complainant and hurled caste slurs and the complainant filed the complaint before the Junagadh Taluka Police Station under Sections 323 , 504 , 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act, which was registered at II-C.R.No. 3119 of 2007 on 1-12-2007. 2.2. The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed chargesheet before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Junagadh and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Junagadh as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 4 of 2008. 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 and a charge at Exh. 1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 1 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 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 ten oral evidences and twenty documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh. 45, 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 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 respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent 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 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 Ms Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Param Buch for the respondent No.2-accused. 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 Ms Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Param Buch for the respondent No.2-accused. 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 has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated direct and indirect evidence in the case. That the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution, which is corroborated by the deposition of the medical officer and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned trial Court. The prosecution has fully prove 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. Param Buch appearing for the respondents- original accused submits that the judgment 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 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 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. 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 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.. 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. That there is no inhibition to re appreciate the evidence by the Appellate Court but if after re appre- ciation, 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 principles of law , the evidence of the prosecution has reappreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Dr. Dhirendra Ranlal Thanki at Exhibit 9 and the witness is the Medical Officer, who was on duty at the Civil Hospital, Junagadh on 30-11-2007, at 8.40 pm, when Vijaybhai, the son of the complainant Vallabhbhai Veerabhai Makwana was brought for treatment. The witness has stated that on 30-11-2007, at around 7 pm, while he was at the shop at Mewasha village, a person named Mohanbhai slapped him. On examination, he had a history of blunt injury on right face but no external marks of injuries were seen and he also had a history of blunt injury on right external ear and on examination no discharge was seen. The patient took Discharge Against Medical Advice on 2- 12-2007 at 9 am. During the cross-examination by learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the history was not given by the patient and on examination, it could not be made out whether the patient was telling the truth or not. That there were no external injuries found on the patient and there could be a number of reasons for the pain. That there were no external injuries found on the patient and there could be a number of reasons for the pain. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Proseuction Witness No. 2 Vallabhbhai Veerabhai at Exhibit 17 and the witness is the complainant who has narrated the facts of the complaint which is produced at exhibit 18. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that at the time of the incident, the accused No.2 was the Deputy Sarpanch of the village and he was not present at the time when the incident with his son had taken place. That his wife had told him about the incident about the motorcycle and his son did not tell him anything about the incident and on the day of the incident when he went to meet the accused No.2, the house was closed and he did not meet the accused No. 2. That at the time of the incident, he had his own mobile and his son was aged about 14 years at the time of the incident. 9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.3 Keshavlal Vashanambhai Vaja at Exhibit 20 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the body of the injured which is produced at exhibit 21. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he had gone to Civil Hospital Junagadh to inquire about the health of one of his relative and there was one person admitted and his signature was taken in the panchnama. That he had seen the boy and there were no marks of injury on the body of the boy. That he had affixed his signature on the panchnama on the say of the police and he does not know any other details about the panchnama. That he had seen the boy and there were no marks of injury on the body of the boy. That he had affixed his signature on the panchnama on the say of the police and he does not know any other details about the panchnama. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not inquire the name of the boy and his signature was taken on the panchnama after 5 p.m. 9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Vijaybhai Vallabhbhai Makwana at Exhibit 23 and the witness is the son of the complainant, who has stated that at around 7 p.m., on the date of the incident, he had gone to purchase a beedi and while he was returning, the accused No. 2 came down from his vehicle and slapped him four times and threw him on the ground and asked him whose son he was. When he gave his father's name, the accused No. 2 hurled caste abuses and he came home and told his mother that the accused No. 2 had slapped him . His mother told his father and his father went to scold the accused and when he returned he told them that he too was abused with caste slurs. That he told his father that his ear was paining and he was taken to the hospital. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he knew Mangarshi Parmar, who had recorded his statement earlier as he had come to record the statement, when his father had earlier filed cases. That he knew the accused No. 2 from before but he did not know the father of the accused No. 2 and he did not tell his father about the incident but he told his mother about the same and before coming to the Court, his father had told him that only if he would say that the accused had used caste slurs, his evidence would be considered as his father had written in the complaint about the same. 9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Rakeshbhai Subhashbhai at Exhibit 24 and the witness has stated that no incident has occurred in his presence and during the cross-examination by the learned APP, the witness has stated that he is not any eyewitness to the incident where the accused No. 2 had slapped Vijay Vallabhbhai. 9.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 Nirmalaben wife of Vallabhbhai Makwana has been examined at Exhibit 25 and the witness is the mother of Vijay, the injured and the wife of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that her son had come home and told him that the accused No. 2 had slapped him. That her husband had gone to scold the accused and when he returned he told them that he too was abused with caste slurs. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the Dalits of the village had encroached the goucher land and the accused had filed a case of encroachment of the goucher land against the dalits and it was dark at the time of the incident. 9.7 Prosecution Witness No. 7 Mansukhbhai Gelabhai Kadaya examined at Exhibit 26 is a witness who has stated that at the time of the incident he was at home and he came to know about the incident from the parents of Vijay. That he and the others had taken Vijay to hospital and during the cross-examination the witness has stated that he is a distant relative of the complainant and on the date of the incident he had gone to the house of the complainant at around 8 p.m. and he was not present when the incident, at the shop of Panchabhai had occurred. 9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Hawaben Tarmuhammad Halani at Exhibit 27 and the witness was the PSO of Junagadh Taluka Police Station on 30.11.2007 and she has registered the complaint of the complainant at II-C.R.No. 3119 of 2007 under Sections 323 , 504 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. 9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 8 Hawaben Tarmuhammad Halani at Exhibit 27 and the witness was the PSO of Junagadh Taluka Police Station on 30.11.2007 and she has registered the complaint of the complainant at II-C.R.No. 3119 of 2007 under Sections 323 , 504 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. 9.9 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.9 Himanshu Pramodbhai Doshi at Exhibit 35 and the witness was working as the PSI of Junagadh Taluka Police Station, at the time of the incident, when the complainant came and he had recorded the complaint of the complainant which is produced at Exhibit 18. 9.10. Prosecution Witness No. 10 Mangalsinh M. Parmar examined at Exhibit 37 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated in detail the entire procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in his statement Vijay, the son of Vallabhbhai Veerabhai Makwana has not stated that the accused No. 2 had abused him with caste slurs and in the statement witness Nirmalaben had stated that Vijay had stated that a bumblebee had bit him near the eye. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, it has come on record that the incident with Vijay, the son of the complainant Vallabhbhai Makwana had occurred near the shop while Vijay had gone to bring beedi for the complainant. Admittedly, the incident has occurred in the street but no eyewitnesses have been examined to support the say of Vijay. The eyewitness Rakeshbhai Subhashbhai has turned hostile and he has not stated that he had witnessed any such incident. The complainant has stated that his son did not tell him about the incident but his wife told him about the incident and when the injured Vijay was taken to hospital, he stated that a person named Mohan had slapped him. The name of the accused are Harish alias Gopal Jayanthibhai Umretia and Jayanthibhai Mohanbhai Umretia and none of the accused are by the name of Mohan. Moreover, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 Dr. Dhirendra Pranlal Thanki and the medical certificate produced at Exhibit 10, there is no corroborative piece of evidence to show that the injured Vijay had sustained any kind of injury on his cheek or on his ear. Moreover, on perusal of the evidence of PW1 Dr. Dhirendra Pranlal Thanki and the medical certificate produced at Exhibit 10, there is no corroborative piece of evidence to show that the injured Vijay had sustained any kind of injury on his cheek or on his ear. Moreover, PW4, the injured Vijay has clearly stated that his father had tutored him to say about the caste slurs else their case would not be believed. Admittedly, it has also emerged on record during the cross-examination that the Gouchar land of the village was encroached by the Dalits and the accused had filed cases against this encroachment and there was a previous enmity between the parties. The learned trial court has also considered this aspect and appreciated the entire evidence in detail and discussed the same. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the oral as well as documentary evidences in detail and has concluded that the contradictory evidence of the complainant and the witnesses cannot be relied upon and it cannot be said that the prosecution has proved his case beyond reasonable doubts. Moreover, the view taken by the learned Trial Court in acquitting the accused is fairly possible and there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 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 extending benefit of doubt and acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against him. 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 extending benefit of doubt and 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 Special Judge & Additional Sessions Judge, Junagadh in Special (ATRO) Case No. 4 of 2008 on 01.04.2009, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.