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 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 24.12.2008 in Special Atrocity Case No.15 of 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Bharuch, camp at Ankleshwar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 504, 452, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocity Act’). 1.1. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity. 2. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 2.1. The complainant Naniben, widow of Devalbhai Adalbhai Vasava and the accused were neighbours and on 22.07.2007 at around 8:30am, the accused, who were residing in Kansiya Kola Street, next to the house of the complainant at village Netrang, were told by the complainant not to extend the shed till her house, and at that time, the accused started abusing the complainant and hurled caste slurs at her. The accused Nos.1 and 2 illegally entered into the house of the complainant and the complainant filed the complaint at Valia Police Station on 03.10.2007, which was registered at Valia Police Station I-C.R.No. 101 of 2007, under Sections 504, 452, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. 2.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special Atrocity Case No.15 of 2008. 2.3. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after completion of the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Special Atrocity Case No.15 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. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.4 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exh.5 to 7 respectively, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 9 witnesses and has produced 10 documentary evidences in support of the case. 2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.36, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The learned learned Trial Court has not properly appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record it its true spirit. The learned Trial Court has erred in acquitting the accused through there are ample and cogent evidence to connect the accused with the crime and the offences registered against them. The learned Trial Court has also committed an error in arriving at the conclusion that though the complainant and the prosecution witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution and there are no material contradictions, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. The impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal, invalid, improper, perverse and bad in law and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.Suraj Matieda for learned advocate Mr.P.P.Majmudar for the accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Ms.Jirga Jhaveri for the appellant – State has taken this Court through the entire evidence produced by the prosecution and has vehemently argued that the learned Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence properly and the prosecution has produced cogent evidence to prove the case and has successfully proved the case against the accused but the learned Trial Court has not considered the same and has acquitted the accused. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is based on inferences, not warranted by facts of the case and also on presumption, not permitted by law. Learned APP has urged this Court to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and to find the accused guilty for the said offence. Learned APP has urged this Court to allow the present appeal and impose maximum sentence on the accused. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Suraj Matieda for the respondents – original accused has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated all the evidence in true perspective and has not committed any error in acquitting the accused. Therefore, no interference of this Court is required in the impugned judgment and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal. 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 , the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. 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 , the Apex Court has observed as under: Recently, in Kallu Vs. 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". (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. 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. It is a settled principle of law that in an appeal against acquittal, the Appellate Court is circumscribed by limitation that no interference has to be made in the order of acquittal unless after appreciation of the evidence produced before the Trial Court, it appears that there are some manifest illegality of perversity which could not have been possibly arrived at by the Court. It is also a settled principle that there is no embargo on the Appellate Court to review the evidence but, generally the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with as the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by the order of acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case of the prosecution i.e. (i) guilt of the accused and (ii) his innocence, the view, which is in favour of the accused, should be adopted, and if the trial Court has taken the view in favour of the accused, the Appellate Court should not disturb the findings of the acquittal. The Appellate Court can interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal only when there are compelling and substantial reasons and the order is clearly unreasonable and where the Appellate Court comes to conclusion that based on the evidence, the conviction is a must. 9. The prosecution has examined PW-1 Naniben Devalbhai Vasava and the witness is the complainant, who has narrated all the facts stated in the complaint, which is produced at Exh.10. The complainant has stated that she is of the Vasava community and has identified all the accused before the learned Trial Court. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness stated that the work of construction was being done 15 days prior to the incident and the slab that was extended was constructed about one week prior to the incident. That she had gone to meet the accused No.1 on innumerable occasions asking him to remove the shed, but the accused No.1 did not pay heed to her request. That she did not give any application in the Gram Panchayat for removal of the shed and has not filed any civil case for the same. That she wanted to remove the shed at any cost and her uncle Jayrambhai Vasava is working in the Forest Department at Sachivalay, Gandhinagar. Her uncle Madhubhai Vasava is a Police Inspector and brother Ramanbhai is a member in the Gram Panchayat, but she did not tell her brother Ramanbhai to get the shed removed. That she had a dispute with the accused regarding removal of the shed and she had given an application on 24.07.2007 before the D.S.P., Bharuch. On 08.08.2007, she had given an application at Vadodara on the advice of her brother and father and there is a lane about 8ft. wide between her house and the house of the accused. That when she told the workers of the accused to remove the shed, the accused No.1 was in the house and her daughter-in-law shouted and called her brother, who was working in the ration shop. That Rekhaben, Savitaben and Ramanbhai are all of the same family. 9.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Paritosh Pravinchandra Modi at Exh.11 and the witness was working as a Radiologist at Sevashram Hospital, Miraj C.T. Scan Center, Bharuch. That Rekhaben, Savitaben and Ramanbhai are all of the same family. 9.1. The prosecution has examined PW-2 Paritosh Pravinchandra Modi at Exh.11 and the witness was working as a Radiologist at Sevashram Hospital, Miraj C.T. Scan Center, Bharuch. The witness has stated that on 07.08.2007, Naniben Devalbhai Vasava had come for a C.T. Scan of her brain and the C.T. Scan was done, but no haemorrhage or tumour was found and no fracture was also found. The witness has produced the certificate of the C.T. Scan at Exh.12. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that Naniben Vasava did not give any history of assault and she had stated that she was having headache for one week and was feeling giddy and had received an an injury on her head about 16 days ago. 9.2. The prosecution has examined PW-3 Ramanbhai Bhulabhai Vasava at Exh.13 and the witness is the brother of the complainant, who has supported the case of the complainant. The witness has stated that at the time of the incident, his sister was injured in the head and on the face and he had taken his sister and gone to the police station and the complaint was given and had thereafter, he had taken her to the Government Hospital. During the cross- examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is a member of the Netrang Gram Panchayat and the Gram Panchayat has the authority to remove any illegal encroachments. That his sister had advised the accused to remove the encroachment but the accused did not remove the same and there was an old dispute regarding the shed between his sister and the accused. At the time of the incident, he heard some noise and he had rushed to the place and had separated his sister that the accused had dragged his sister for about 10 ft., but her sari was not torn, even though she was dragged. 9.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Savitaben Kishanbhai at Exh.14 and the witness is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who has stated that on the day of the incident, she was working in the cattle shed and she heard some noise and she went to see and found that her sister-in-law was quarreling with the accused. 9.3. The prosecution has examined PW-4 Savitaben Kishanbhai at Exh.14 and the witness is the sister-in-law of the complainant, who has stated that on the day of the incident, she was working in the cattle shed and she heard some noise and she went to see and found that her sister-in-law was quarreling with the accused. That she does not know what had happened and as she was afraid, she ran away. Her sister-in-law Naniben had sustained injuries on her nose and mouth and she does not know whether Naniben had filed the complaint. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross examined at length by the learned APP. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she had heard the noise and ran away and she returned home only after 12:00 noon. She does not know what had happened after she ran away and she had heard that the incident taken place. 9.4. The prosecution has examined PW-5 Rekhaben Vinodbhai at Exh.15 and the witness is the daughter-in-law of the complainant, who has stated that she was in the washroom at the time of the incident and does not know what had taken place. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has been declared hostile and has been cross-examined at length by the learned APP. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness stated that the verbal altercation was regarding the extension of the shed that was being done by the accused and immediately thereafter, Ramanbhai had come and taken her mother-in-law to the hospital. That she does not know where her mother-in-law had gone thereafter. 9.5. The prosecution has has examined PW-6 Bhagabhai Ranjitsinh Ganava and the witness was working as Police Inspector at Valia Police station when the complainant had come to file the complaint, which is produced at Exh.10. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complaint was filed on the basis of the application given by the complainant on 08.08.2007, which was an application regarding breach of public peace. The application has not been produced on record and later on, the application was produced, which is at Exh.24. 9.6. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the complaint was filed on the basis of the application given by the complainant on 08.08.2007, which was an application regarding breach of public peace. The application has not been produced on record and later on, the application was produced, which is at Exh.24. 9.6. The prosecution has examined PW-7 Dr Chandresh Rasik Mehta at Exh.26 and the witness was working as a Medical Officer in the Primary Health Centre, Netrang on 10.08.2007. The witness has stated that Naniben Devalbhai Vasava had come for treatment and had stated that she was assaulted. She had a CLW on the bridge of her nose, left side upper 1/3 , ½ cm long and ¼ cm deep. The witness has produced the Medical Certificate at Exh.28 and the Medical Papers at Exh.27. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that there was no other injury on the patient beside the nose and the patient did not give the details about how, when and where, and by what weapon, the injury has taken place. That if a person dashes against a wall or falls on the ground, injury as sustained by the patient could occur. The patient did not come with Police Yaadi and did not mention the details of the assault. 9.7. The prosecution has examined PW-8 Bharatsinh Khumansinh Gohil, Buckle No.1448 at Exh.31 and the witness was working as the P.S.O. in Valia Police Station on 03.10.2007 and he has registered the offence at Valia Police Station I-C.R.No. 101 of 2007, under Sections 504, 452, 323, 506(2) and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocities Act. 9.8. The prosecution has examined PW-9 Mayursinh Natvarsinh Chauhan at Exh.34 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the procedure that was undertaken by him during investigation. The witness has stated that he was working as a Dy.S.P., Bharuch on 03.10.2007 and he had the additional charge of the Dy.S.P., S.C.S.T. Cell and on the basis of the written order of D.S.P., he had taken over the investigation. The witness has stated that he was working as a Dy.S.P., Bharuch on 03.10.2007 and he had the additional charge of the Dy.S.P., S.C.S.T. Cell and on the basis of the written order of D.S.P., he had taken over the investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in the investigation, there was no evidence that the complainant and her brother Ramanbhai Bholabhai Vasava had gone to the Valia Police Station on the date of the incident and the complaint was refused to be filed. The complainant and her brother in their statements did not state that they had gone to the Valia Police Station and their complaint was not filed. That no complaint was filed in the Netrang Outpost by the complainant on the date of the incident. 10. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the complainant, the incident has occurred on 22.07.2007 at 8:30 hours and the complainant has stated that as she was injured, immediately she was taken to the police station by her brother and they had filed the complaint, but there is no iota of evidence that any such complaint was filed by the complainant either at Netrang Police Station or Netrang Outpost. The complaint has been filed on 03.10.2007 and there is no reason for the delay in filing of the complaint after more than two months. PW-4 Savitaben Kishanbhai and PW-5, Rekhaben Vinodbhai, the sister- in-law and the daughter-in-law of the complainant respectively, and were in the house at the time of incident and rushed out on hearing the noise, have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution and even though, the incident has taken place in a residential area and there would be a number of independent persons surrounding the place of incident, no evidence of any independent witness has come on record. The evidence of PW-3 Ramanbhai Bhulabhai Vasava, the elder brother of the complainant, is full of exaggerations. As per the say of of the complaint, she had immediately gone to the police station and thereafter gone to the hospital, but there is no iota of evidence that the complainant had gone to the hospital on the same day. The evidence of PW-3 Ramanbhai Bhulabhai Vasava, the elder brother of the complainant, is full of exaggerations. As per the say of of the complaint, she had immediately gone to the police station and thereafter gone to the hospital, but there is no iota of evidence that the complainant had gone to the hospital on the same day. The Medical Officer examined at Exh.26 states that the complainant did not give the names of any persons, who had assaulted her and she had only sustained an injury on her nose. The Radiologist examined at Exh.11 states that there was no injury on the head of the complainant and she had a complaint of headache and giddiness and did not mention about being assaulted by anyone. The evidence that has emerged on record is that there was a dispute with regard to the construction being made by the accused and the complainant wanted the construction to be removed at any cost. 11. In view of the above, 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 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 judgment and the order dated 24.12.2008 in Special Atrocity Case No.15 of 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court, Bharuch, camp at Ankleshwar is hereby confirmed. 13. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.