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, Fast Track Court. No. 1, Khambhaliya (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Trial Court") in Special Case (ATRO) No. 23 of 2007 on 20.03.2009, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 324, 504, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) as well as Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 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] On 2-7-2006, at around 4 p.m., there was a meeting of the Women's Group near the Ram Mandir at village Baradia and the complainant, Puriben Jeevanbhai Chanpa was the president of Mahila Development Trust, Rukshmani Group. At that time, the children of Baradia village were playing in the Ram Mandir compound and Sagar - the son of Puriben Jeevanbhai Chanpa and Karsan - the grandson of the accused No. 1 Lakshmiben Randhirbhai Rabari started quarreling and the complainant Puriben Jeevanbhai Chanpa intervened and separated them. After some time the accused No. 1 Lakshmiben Randhirbhai Rabari went to the complainant and started quarreling with her as to why she had assaulted her grandson and she slapped the complainant three to four times. Chandniben Praveenbhai intervened and separated them and thereafter all the accused started abusing the complainant and hurled caste slurs. The complainant Puriben Jeevanbhai Chanpa filed the complaint under Sections 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act before the Khambalia Police Station on 4-7-2006 at 16:30 hours, which was registered at Khambalia Police Station being II-C.R. No. 46 of 2006. The complainant Puriben Jeevanbhai Chanpa filed the complaint under Sections 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the I.P.C. and Sections 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act before the Khambalia Police Station on 4-7-2006 at 16:30 hours, which was registered at Khambalia Police Station being II-C.R. No. 46 of 2006. 2.2] The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and collected the necessary documents and after completion of investigation the police filed the chargesheet against the accused before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dwarka and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge, Khambhaliya as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Special (ATRO) Case No. 23 of 2007. 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. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh. 4 to 6, 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 eighteen documentary evidences to bring home the charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis at Exh.39, 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. 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 Mr. Ronak Raval, for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Salman S Khan for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respondents-accused and Ms Namrata Dave for respondent No. 4 - original complainant. Though served, the respondent No. 1 has neither appear in person nor through an advocate. 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. Ronak Raval for Appellant State and Ms. Namrata Dave for respondent No. 4 - original complainant have taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and have jointly submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned trial Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. The prosecution has fully proved 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. The prosecution has fully proved 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. 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. Salman S Khan for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 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. 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". (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.. 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. In light of the above settled principles of law, the evidence on record of the case is appreciated and the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 1 Puriben Jeevanbhai Chanpa at Exhibit 8 and the witness is the complainant, who has narrated all the facts stated in the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 9. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that while the children were fighting, she was in the meeting and one child of the Rabari community had beaten her son and the accused No. 1 had also beat her son, which was told to her by the person sitting near her. It is not written in the complaint that the accused No. 1 had twisted the ear of her son and the ear of her son started bleeding. Before filing the complaint they had decided to wind up the meeting and had decided to file the complaint and she had met her advocate before filing the complaint. Her advocate had drafted the complaint, which was given to the police station and thereafter once again she went to the police station to file the complaint. 9.1 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 2 Chandaniben Praveenchandra Trivedi at Exhibit 17 and the witness was working as a member of the NGO Gramya Vikas Trust and was a Social Worker. On 2-7-2007, the witness was at Baradia in the meeting of the Women's Group. The president was Puriben Jeevanbhai Chanpa and the meeting being conducted in the compound of the Ram Temple of Baradia village. On 2-7-2007, the witness was at Baradia in the meeting of the Women's Group. The president was Puriben Jeevanbhai Chanpa and the meeting being conducted in the compound of the Ram Temple of Baradia village. The witness has stated that during the meeting, some children were playing and she had to take the signature of the complainant in the register and she asked where was the complainant and one of the member told her that the complainant was behind and there was a quarrel going on. She went there and found a verbal altercation taking place and she told the complainant not to say anything during the meeting. The complainant had told her that the accused No. 1 had assaulted her son and was abusing them and they decided to conclude the meeting and would decide what to do thereafter. She does not know what was the verbal altercation about, as she was in the meeting. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the meetings are predecided and the agendas of the meetings are given and a minute book is maintained for all the meetings. The complainant Puriben is given an honorarium by the NGO and immediately after the meeting concluded she left for Dwarka. On the next day, the complainant and others had come for advice and she did not accompany the complainant, when she went to file the complaint. The complaint was filed by the complainant through her advocate and the complaint was filed by Maniben and Puriben. That she came to know abou the incident from Puriben and the incident did not take place in the temple premises but in one portion of the compound and there is a compound wall surrounding the temple. 9.2 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.3 Maniben wife of Devabhai Chasiya at Exh.18 and the witness was present at the meeting and an eyewitness to the incident. The witness has stated that when the children started fighting, the complainant went and gave a slap to the son of the accused No. 1 and separated them and came and sat for the meeting. That, once again there was a quarrel and the complainant Lakshmiben, Rajuben and Leelaben started quarreling with fists and they intervened and separated them. The witness has stated that when the children started fighting, the complainant went and gave a slap to the son of the accused No. 1 and separated them and came and sat for the meeting. That, once again there was a quarrel and the complainant Lakshmiben, Rajuben and Leelaben started quarreling with fists and they intervened and separated them. That caste abuses were hurled and after discussion, they had decided to give an application to Dwarka Police Station and after thinking for two days, they gave the application in the police station. The application was given by all the women of the group and she and Puriben were the complainants. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that none of the accused are members of their institution and after the incident they had given a written complaint against three persons. The complaint was drafted by the advocate and their signatures were affixed and the complaint is produced at Exhibit 19. 9.3 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 4 Puriben Surabha Vadher at Exhibit 20 and the witness was also a member of the women's group and present at the meeting. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that as the children were quarreling, the person sitting next to the complainant Puriben told her that her son was quarreling and she left the meeting and went to her son and thereafter the accused No. 1 slapped her and took her grandchild and went away and after some time they returned and started quarreling and hurled caste abuse. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that they have not given the resolutions to the police and they had not given any documents stating that on the date of the incident there was a meeting. The temple has a compound and and the meeting was in the temple premises and the children were playing in the ground opposite the temple. When the quarrel started she was busy with the meeting and as there were shouts, she came to know about the incident. The temple has a compound and and the meeting was in the temple premises and the children were playing in the ground opposite the temple. When the quarrel started she was busy with the meeting and as there were shouts, she came to know about the incident. On 07.02.2009, they had a compromise with the accused and the complainant Puriben and Maniben also had a compromise with the accused that all the people had intervened and in the presence of the elders, they all had tea and had voluntarily entered into the compromise. That persons of all communities reside in their village, without any quarrel and they all live peacefully. After the incident all the women got together and had a discussion and Puriben had decided to file the complaint. 9.4 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 5 Soniben Rajshibhai Chasiya at Exhibit 21 and the witness was present at the meeting and has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the meeting was in one corner of the temple premises and the children were playing on the other side of the compound. The temple has about one vigha of land and there is a compound wall surrounding the temple that all the women were busy in the meeting and the complainant Puriben had gone to the place where the children were fighting. When she heard the shouts, she came to know that there was a quarrel and after the children were separated the women started fighting. The complainant belongs to her caste and Maniben is also of her caste and they all had decided to file the complaint. That they had gone to the advocate at Dwarka and the advocate wrote the complaint and Puriben and Maniben had given the complaint. 9.5 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.6 Sagar Jivanbhai Chanpa at Exhibit 12 and the witness is the son of the complainant, who has supported the case of the prosecution and has stated that while he was playing with other children he and Karsan had a fight and Karsan had hurled caste abuses on him. His mother came and separated them and he went and sat with his mother in the meeting. His mother came and separated them and he went and sat with his mother in the meeting. That once again he and Karsan had a fight and Karsan's grandmother came and twisted his ear and his ear started bleeding. Karsan's grandmother gave him slaps and also slapped his mother two three times. He went home and he does not know what happened thereafter. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is studying in the same school as Karsan and all the children laugh and play together on the day of the incident, he and Karsan go to school together and they played together with other children. 9.6 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 7 Keshrisinh Pethabha Manek at Exhibit 24 and Prosecution Witness No. 8 Mepabhai Valabhai Chanpa at Exhibit 26. Both of the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the panchnama of the place of offense, which is produced at Exhibit 25. Both of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution and have been declared hostile. 9.7 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 9 Mayursinh Pravinsinh Solanki at Exhibit 27 and the witness was working as a PSI in Dwarka Police Station on 4-7-2006. When the complainant came to give the complaint, which is produced at Exhibit 9 and he had registered the complaint as Dwarka Police Stations being II-C.R.No. 46 of 2006 under Sections 323, 504, 506 (2) and 114 of the IPC and Sections 3 (1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. During the cross examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the complaint, the complainant had stated that, she had given a written complaint to the police station on 3-7-2006 and the complaint was regarding the same incident. The application that was given on 3-7-2006 was entered in the Station Diary Entry No. 12 and the Head Constable of Dhinki Outpost had inquired into the matter and had come to a conclusion that no offence was made out and the application was filed. The application given on 3-7-2006 was given by Maniben and they had received two complaints regarding the same incident. The application given on 3-7-2006 was given by Maniben and they had received two complaints regarding the same incident. When the complaint at Exhibit 9 was registered, it was within his knowledge that the application given by Maniben produced at Exhibit 19 was inquired into and there was a report of Police Head Constable P.D. Solanki that no offence is made out and the application was filed. 9.8 The prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No. 10 Jayantibhai Becharbhai Vasava at Exhibit 32 and the witness 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, during investigation, it was found that prior to filing of the complaint, an application was given regarding the same incident at Dwarka Police Station. He does not remember whether he had received a copy of the application at Exhibit 19 and he did not record the statement of Head Constable P.D. Solanki. He did not place the documents of the application with his investigation papers and he did not inquire into the application at Exhibit 19. That there was no evidence that on the date of incident, there was a meeting of the women's group at the temple premises. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, a number of contradictions in the deposition of all the witnesses has come on record. The prosecution has not proved the genesis of the incident, which was the fight between the kids beyond reasonable doubts and in the entire evidence, it has emerged that there was a huge ground of about one vigha and the meeting was held in the temple premises and the kids were playing on the opposite end of the ground, which was at a distance away from the place, where the meeting was held. The Investigating Officer has stated that there is no evidence on record that a meeting of the Women's Group was held and the incident has occurred on 02-07-2006, and thereafter, the meeting was concluded and the complainant and other witnesses, all had a discussion, and they decided to file the complaint. The Investigating Officer has stated that there is no evidence on record that a meeting of the Women's Group was held and the incident has occurred on 02-07-2006, and thereafter, the meeting was concluded and the complainant and other witnesses, all had a discussion, and they decided to file the complaint. That they went to take the advice of an advocate and the advocate had drafted the application produced at Exhibit 19 and the application regarding the incident was given at the Dwarka Police Station, which was inquired into by head constable P.D.Solanki. As per the report of Head Constable P.D.Solanki, no offense was made out and the application was filed and thereafter on the next day, i.e. on 04-07-2006, the complaint produced at Exhibit 9 came to be filed. There is no reason mentioned for the delay in filing of the complaint and in the evidence of the Investigation Officer, the statement of Manibhai Devabhai Chansiya is produced, wherein she had stated that no threat was given and the allegations made in the application are false and they are of the same village and as they have the fear that the opponents would breach public peace, they had given the application against the opponents. This statement of Maniben Devabhai Chansiya is recorded on 03-07-2006 by Police Head Constable Devaki Outpost, Dwarka Police Station, which clearly states that no such incident had taken place. The learned Trial Court has discussed all the evidence produced on record by the prosecution and has narrated all the contradictions that has come on record. 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 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. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court. No. 1, Khambhaliya in Special Case (ATRO) No. 23 of 2007 on 20.03.2009, is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.