JUDGMENT : S.V. Pinto, J. 1. Though served, the respondent No. 6 – original complainant has not appeared either in person or through a lawyer to make submission on his behalf. 2. 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 08.10.2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.8 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 332, 323, 504, 506(2), 403 and 427 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’), Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Atrocities Act’) and Section 39 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT . 2.1. 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. 3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: 3.1. The complainant Navnitbhai Prahaladhai Patel was working as a Deputy Engineer in the Gujarat Electricity Board and on 27.12.2007, had gone along with his staff members Prahadbhai Somabhai Prajapati, Vinodkumar Kanaiyalal Darji, Jivanbhai Chhaganbhai Desai, Mafabhai Gatuji and Navinbhai Kanabhai Damor for checking electricity connections at village Samau in the Sathwaravas and Patelvas and had thereafter gone to the Darbarvas. They went to the house of Hamirji Maganji Chawada and as he had not paid the electricity bill, his electricity meter and service wire were disconnected about one month ago by helper Navinbhai Kanabhai Damor and the meter was deposited in the GEB office. That even though the electricity connection was disconnected, the electricity was on in the house and on inquiring, the son of Hamirji told them that they had taken the wires from behind of the home. The accused got together and started abusing the complainant and others and while they were trying to sit in their jeep, the accused came and assaulted them and tore the muffler and sweater of the complainant and in the fisticuffs, a two tola gold chain of the complainant fell down. The accused got together and started abusing the complainant and others and while they were trying to sit in their jeep, the accused came and assaulted them and tore the muffler and sweater of the complainant and in the fisticuffs, a two tola gold chain of the complainant fell down. The jeep driver, Natubhai Patel was also pulled from the steering and helper Navinbhai Kanabhai Damor was also physically assaulted and caste slurs were used against him. That as they started shouting, others came and saved them and the complainant Navnitbhai Prahladbhai Patel filed the complaint at the Mansa Police Station, which was registered at Mansa Police Station I-C.R.No.180 of 2007 under Sections 147 ,148,149,332, 323, 504, 506(2), 403, 427 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act and Section 39 of the Indian ELECTRICITY ACT . 3.2. 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. A charge was framed by the learned Trial Court at Exh.12 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs.13 to 17, 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 4 documentary evidences in support of the case. 3.3. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP, 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 perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 332, 323, 504, 506(2), 403 and 427 of the IPC and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act. 4. 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. 4. 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 Trial Court has not considered the direct or indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the accused with the crime and has also not appreciated the oral as well as documentary evidence on record and has straightway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts. The learned Trial Court has erred in considering minor omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution and the learned Trial Court has given much weightage to these minor omissions and contradictions. The reasons given by the learned Trial Court appreciating the evidence and while acquitting the accused, are not proper and are perverse and bad in law, and hence, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Heard learned APP Mr.Pranav Dhagat for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr.J.V.Japee for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. Perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal and have re-appreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 6. Learned APP Mr.Prahav Dhagat 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 the learned Judge is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Judge 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. 7. Learned advocate Mr.J.V.Japee for the respondent Nos. 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. 7. Learned advocate Mr.J.V.Japee for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 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 judgement and the order of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court and has urged this Court to reject the appeal. 8. 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) …….. 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 ac-quittal 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 cir- cumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an ap- pellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phrase- ologies 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 avail- able 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 acquit- tal, 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. 9. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquit- tal, 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. 9. 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 learned 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. 10. In light of the above, the evidence produced by the prosecution on record is appreciated and the prosecution has examined PW-1 Navnitbhai Prahaladbhai Patel at Exh.18 and the witness is the complainant, who has narrated all the details of the complaint, which is produced at Exh.19. The complainant has identified the accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court and has stated that there were others besides these two, but he could not identify them. The complainant has identified the accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court and has stated that there were others besides these two, but he could not identify them. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that on the day of the incident, they had gone for a general checking and along with the driver, they were seven of them. He was seated on the seat beside the driver and the others were sitting behind in the jeep, which was with a hood. That he cannot say how long they were at the Sathwaravas and the Patelvas and in the complaint, he has not mentioned that the electricity connection was on in the house. That prior to the incident, he did not have the occasion to meet any of the accused and in the complaint, he has not described the accused. That no test identification parade was conducted by the Investigating Officer during investigation. 10.1. The prosecution has examined P.W.-2 Vinodbhai Kanaiyalal Darji and the witness was working as a helper in the Gujarat Electricity Board Gozariya Sub-Division. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution and has identified the accused Nos. 1 and 2 before the learned Trial Court and has stated that besides these two, he could not identify the others. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he does not know in whose name was the electricity connection and in the statement before the police, he has not stated that the electricity connection was on in the house of Hamirbhai. That the persons, who were present there, did not allow his superior officer to go in the house and as they were afraid, they started leaving the place and could not do any writing work at that place. That they did not go into the house of Hamirbai and did not inquire from Hamirbhai about anything. That he knew the name of the accused No.1 as helper Navinbhai had told him his name and Navinbhai knew the persons by name. 10.2. The prosecution has examined P.W.-3 Pradipkumar Manubhai Shukal at Exh.22 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.23. That he knew the name of the accused No.1 as helper Navinbhai had told him his name and Navinbhai knew the persons by name. 10.2. The prosecution has examined P.W.-3 Pradipkumar Manubhai Shukal at Exh.22 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence, which is produced at Exh.23. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has merely stated that on 27.12.2007 while he was going towards his residence and passing by the house of Pravinsinh, the police had stopped him and asked him to affix his signature, and he had affixed his signature on the panchnama, which is produced at Exh.23. 10.3. The prosecution has examined P.W.-4 Navinbhai Kanabhai Damor at Exh.24 and the witness was working as a helper in the Gujarat Electricity Board. The witness has stated that he had disconnected the electricity connection of Hamirji Maganji Chawda as the electricity bill was not paid and on 27.12.2007 the officers of Gozariya Sub Division had gone to Samau village. They had checked the electricity connection in Patelvas and Sathwaravas and had gone towards Mota Darbarvas and to the house of Hamirji Makanji Chawda. The electricity in the house was working and they inquired about the same as the electricity connection was disconnected one month prior to the incident. On inquiring from Prafulji, the son of Hamirji, they started fighting and as the situation became heated, his superior officer went to the vehicle and they had a verbal altercation there. The accused No.1 asked the superior officer why he had come so early in the morning and besides that nothing else had taken place. All the accused had assaulted them and the driver Natubhai was thrown down from the vehicle by the crowd of people that had gathered there. They went to the Mansa Police Station and the complaint was filed by his superior officer Navnitbhai. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that besides him, there were no other persons of Samau village and he has not stated at whose house is in Sathwaravas and Patelvas was the checking conducted. That he knew the house of Hamirji and he knew the accused prior to the incident. The electricity goods were brought from Gozariya office in the vehicles of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they were being paid the rent for the same. That he knew the house of Hamirji and he knew the accused prior to the incident. The electricity goods were brought from Gozariya office in the vehicles of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and they were being paid the rent for the same. That they did not inquire from Hamirji about his electricity connection. 10.4. The prosecution has examined P.W.-5 Nutvarbhai Virchandbhai Patel at Exh.26 and the witness was the driver of Jeep No.GAQ-4678, which was on contract at the Gujarat Electricity Board, Manasa. The witness has stated that on the date of the incident, he had gone with his jeep early in the morning, along with the Deputy Engineer, Gozariya office and other officers for electricity checking at Samau village and they had checked the electricity connections at Sathwaravas and Patelvas. They had gone to the Darbarvas and he was seated in the jeep and some altercation took place. The officers came to the jeep and there was a verbal altercation near the jeep too and the officers of the board were assaulted. There was a crowd of about 25 to 30 people and the accused Nos.1 and 2 were also present. The complaint was filed by the officer and he was thrown down from his vehicle, but he does not know who amongst the crowd threw him down. 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. 10.5. The prosecution has examined P.W.-6 Mafaji Jasuji Chawda at Exh.27 and the witness was working in the GEB and had gone along with the officers for checking on the day of the incident. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in his statement before the police, he did not say that the accused No.1 got agitated and misbehaved and caught the muffler and sweater of his superior officer and had thrown the jeep driver down. 10.6. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in his statement before the police, he did not say that the accused No.1 got agitated and misbehaved and caught the muffler and sweater of his superior officer and had thrown the jeep driver down. 10.6. The prosecution has examined P.W.-7 Ganpatlal Savabhai at Exh.31 and the witness was working as the P.S.O. at Manasa Police Station and has registered the complaint of the complainant at Mansa Police Station I-C.R.No.180 of 2007 under Sections 147 , 148, 149, 332, 323, 504, 506(2), 403, 427 of the IPC, Section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act and Section-39 of the ELECTRICITY ACT . During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that none of the persons, who had come, were injured and they were not sent to any hospital for treatment and no torn clothes were produced by the complainant at the time of filing with the complaint. 10.7. The prosecution has examined P.W.-8 Sachin Badshah at Exh.32 and the witness is the Investigating Officer, who has narrated in detail the entire procedure, undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that none of the witnesses have named the other accused besides the accused No.1 and 2 in their statements before the police during investigation and none of the witnesses have described the accused or have given any marks of identification of the accused. The place of incident was shown by helper Navinbhai Damor and the statements of the residents surrounding the place of incident have not been recorded. No Test Identification Parade of the accused was conducted during investigation and no torn sweater or muffler of the complainant was seized during investigation The injury certificates of the complainant or other witnesses were not seized during investigation and the complainant Navinbhai had gone to Samau village for the first time for electricity checking and he does not know whether the complainant was known to the neighbours. That he does not know how the complainant has named the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the complaint and he has not collected the Caste Certificate of Navinbhai, but it was produced by Navinbhai and he has not collected or seized any documents with regard to the Caste Certificate of Navinbhai. 10.8. The prosecution has examined P.W.-9 Jayantilal Keshaval Chaudhari at Exh.35 and the witness was working as a clerk at the office of the Executive Magistrate and has produced the Caste Certificate of Navinbhai Kanabhai Solanki at Exh.36. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he did not see any application given by Navinbhai Kanabhai Solanki for getting the Caste Certificate, and he does not know whether the birth of Navinbhai Kanabhai Solanki is registered with the Ravatavada Gramp Panchayat and he has not inquired about the same. 11. On minute perusal of the entire evidence of the prosecution on record, as per the evidence, there was a crowd of about 25 to 30 persons present on the date of incident and the complainant has not produced any document to show that they were authorized to go for checking on 27.12.2007. There is no evidence as to how many electricity connections were checked in the Sathwaravas and in the Patelvas prior to their arrival at the Darbarvas. Admittedly, the complainant had gone to Samau village for the first time and he did not know any of the persons, but in the complaint produced at Exh.19, he has named the accused and there is no clarification as to how he has named the accused at the time of filing the complaint. None of the witnesses, though there were many eye witnesses to the incident have identified the accused Nos. 3, 4, and 5 and there is nothing on record to show that the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had played any role in the incident and whether they were present at the place or not. The eye witnesses have not described the accused and have not stated any marks of identification of the accused and there is no iota of evidence as to whether the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had committed any act or had assaulted the complainant and the other witnesses. The eye witnesses have not described the accused and have not stated any marks of identification of the accused and there is no iota of evidence as to whether the accused Nos. 3, 4 and 5 had committed any act or had assaulted the complainant and the other witnesses. The complainant or other witnesses have not stated any words or caste slurs uttered by any one and the eye witnesses do not fully support the case of the prosecution. P.W.-5 Natvarbhai Virchandbhai Patel, the driver of jeep No.GAQ-4678 was an independent witness, but he has not supported the case of the prosecution. As per the case of the prosecution, the muffler and sweater of the complainant were torn as the accused had pulled them and assaulted them, but no torn muffler or shirt or sweater has been recovered by the investigating officer during the investigation. The complainant or any of the witnesses have not taken any treatment regarding the assault and admittedly, there were a number of residential houses at the place where the checking had taken place and there were people, who were staying around, but none of the independent witnesses or neighbours have been examined before the learned Trial Court. Moreover, as the complainant had gone to Samau village for the first time, he did not know the accused and from the crowd of 25 to 30 persons who had gathered at the place of incident, the complainant has named the accused, but no test identification was conducted by the investigating officer during the investigation. 12. 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 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. 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. 13. The impugned judgment and the order dated 08.10.2009 in Special Atrocity Case No.8 of 2008 passed by the learned Additional Sessions and Fast Track Judge, Gandhinagar is hereby confirmed. 14. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.