JUDGMENT : (S.V. PINTO, J.) 1. The 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 Special Judge, (Atrocity) Court No. 18, Ahmedabad City (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Atrocity Case No. 29/2009 on 14.07.2010, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent nos. 2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 506(1), 294A and 114 of IPC and Section 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. 1.2 During the pendency of the appeal, the respondent no. 1 had expired and therefore, the appeal qua the respondent no. 1 was abated. 2. The brief facts that emerge from the record of the case are as under: 2.1 On 09.07.1997 the complainant - Bhogilal Dahyabhai Vaghela along with Rameshbhai Shankarbhai, Jayantibhai Khushalbhai, Bhikhabhai Jeevabhai and Dhanjibhai Khanabhai were having lunch at Hotel Gulzar when the accused came and started abusing them and hurled casts abuses and threw them out of the hotel. The accused beat the complainant on his face and chest and the complainant filed the complaint under Sections 323, 506(2), 294(b) 114 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which was registered at Kalupur Police Station I – C.R. No. 3606 of 1997. 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 Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 16, Ahmedabad and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Ahmedabad City as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atrocity Case No. 29/2009. 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. 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. 4 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 5 to 7, wherein, all 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 Bhogilal Dahyabhai Vaghela 11 2 2 Bhikhabhai Jivabhai Makwana 13 3 3 Jayantibhai Khusalbhai Vaghela 14 4 4 Baldevbhai Shanabhai Jadav 15 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Complaint 12 2 Report 16 3 Panchnama 17 4 Caste certificate of complainant 18 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. 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 Ms. Jirga Jhaveri and learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Prajapati for the respondent nos. 2 and 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 Ms. Jirga Jhaveri 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 and learned advocate has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondents guilty for the offences. 6. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Prajapati for the respondents 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 principles of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 – Bhogilal Dahyabhai Vaghela at Exh. 11 and the witness is the complainant who has fully supported the contents of the complaint which is produced at Exh. 12. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that they had gone to Gulzar Hotel at around 01.30 pm and they had given the order to the waiter and there were many people having their lunch at that place. That he does not know the name of the owner of the hotel and the road opposite to the hotel is congested with a number of persons passing by. He does not know whether any people had gathered at the time of the incident and he cannot identify the accused. That they were cleaning the gutters on the road and they went to the Police Chowky at around 02.30 pm. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Bhikhabhai Jivabhai Makwana at Exh. 13 and the witness was along with the complainant at the time of the incident. The witness has stated that the four of them were assaulted by the accused but the person who had assaulted them was not before the court. 9.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Bhikhabhai Jivabhai Makwana at Exh. 13 and the witness was along with the complainant at the time of the incident. The witness has stated that the four of them were assaulted by the accused but the person who had assaulted them was not before the court. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that they were seated at the hotel for lunch at around 11.15 am and the incident lasted for about half an hour. Four to five persons had gathered outside the hotel and they did not take any treatment for the assault by the accused. 9.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 - Jayantibhai Khusalbhai Vaghela at Exh. 14 and as per the case of the prosecution, the witness was also along with the complainant and others at Gulzar Hotel at the time of the incident. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that he does not know whether any incident taken place but the policeman had told him that he had to give evidence. That he did not see any incident and he did not go to any hotel with any persons and he does not know the accused. The witness has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP but nothing to support the case of the prosecution has come on record. 9.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Baldevbhai Shanabhai Jadav at Exh. 15 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and has also recorded the complaint of the complainant. The witness has stated that he arrested the accused and as there was enough evidence, he had filed the charge-sheet before the jurisdictional Magistrate. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had conducted the entire investigation and had filed the charge-sheet and he is aware that in a case under the Atrocity Act, an officer of the rank of ACP has to conduct the investigation. The complainant did not give his caste certificate at the time of the complaint, and the complainant and other witnesses did not have any injuries on them. That no yadi for treatment was given to the complainant and the other witnesses. 10. The complainant did not give his caste certificate at the time of the complaint, and the complainant and other witnesses did not have any injuries on them. That no yadi for treatment was given to the complainant and the other witnesses. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per case of the complainant, the complainant along with Rameshbhai Shankarbhai, Jayantibhai Khushalbhai, Bhikhabhai Jeevabhai and Danjibbhai Khanabhai were having lunch at Gulzar Hotel when all the accused came and assaulted them and out of the witnesses, Bhikhabhai Jeevabhai and Jayantibhai Khushalbhai have been examined but both the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution. The complainant has himself identified the accused and even though as per the say of the complainant, the road outside Gulzar Hotel is crowded and full of people passing by and at the time of the incident, a number of persons had gathered, there is no evidence of any independent witness that has come on record. In the entire evidence, none of the witnesses have identified the accused and other witnesses who were present with the complainant at the time of the incident, have not been examined before the learned Trial Court. There is no medical evidence to corroborate the say of the complainant and there are major contradictions in the timings of the incident in the evidence of the complainant and the 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 Special Judge, (Atrocity) Court No. 18, Ahmedabad City in Atrocity Case No. 29/2009 on 14.07.2010, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.