JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. This 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 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Atrocity Case No. 34/2010 on 31.10.2012, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 323 , 325, 504, 506(2) 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 Act” for short). 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 29.07.2005, the complainant - Khanabai Motibhai Jadhav had gone at 08.00 am with his cattle for grazing in a field known as Ven in the outskirts of Varana village and while the cattle were grazing, the accused no. 1 came and asked him why he was at this place with his cattle and when the complainant told him that it was his brother's land, the accused no. 1 took the spade that was in his hand and tried to hit the complainant and the complainant got afraid and tried to run away and the spade was hit on the right flank of the complainant. The complainant fell down and at that time the accused no. 2 came and beat the complainant with fists and as the complainant started shouting, his brother - Manubhai Khabhabai Jadhav intervened and released him from further beatings. The accused threatened him that if he was found alone, they would kill him and abused him and hurled castle slurs against him and the complainant filed the complaint which was registered as Koth Police Station II – C.R. No. 54 of 2005 under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act. 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 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dholka 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 (Rural) as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Atro (Special) Case No. 24/2008. 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 at Exh. 3 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused was recorded at Exhs. 4 and 5 wherein, 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 Khanabhai Motibhai Jadav 6 2 2 Narendrabhai Fulabhai 10 3 3 Dr. Ashishbhai Kamleshkumar Mehta 12 4 4 Prabhubhai Chikabhai Jadav 14 5 5 Govindbhai Punjabhai Jadav 16 6 6 Lagharbhai Nathabhai Dabhi 17 7 7 Kanubhai Jashubhai Bharwad 18 8 8 Dahyabhai Koyabhai 19 9 9 Lallubhai Haribhai Desai 22 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE Sr. No. Particulars Exh. 1 Complaint 7 2 Caste Certificate 9 3 Arrest Panchnama 11 4 Treatment Certificate 13 5 Panchnama of place of offence 15 6 Index 20 2.5 After the learned APP filed the closing pursis, the further statements 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. 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. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. M.A Parekh for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 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. Pranav Dhagat 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 has urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences. 5.1 Learned advocate Mr. M.A. Parekh for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 has submitted that the learned Trial Court has appreciated the evidence and passed the impugned judgement and order and no interference is required hence, the appeal may be rejected. 6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference in acquittal appeals in the case of Chandrappa & Ors. Vs. 6. At the outset, before discussing the facts of the present case, it would be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court regarding the scope of interference 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 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. 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, re-appreciate 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. 7. 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. 8. In light of the above settled principle of law, the evidence of the prosecution is dissected and the prosecution has examined PW1 – Khanabhai Motibhai Jadav at Exh. 6 and the complainant has narrated the facts of the complaint produced at Exh. 7 and has also produced his caste certificate at Exh. 9. The witness has stated that he was taken to Aastha Hospital at Dholka and he was admitted for 22 days at Aastha Hospital for treatment. He had sustained a fracture and had to be operated upon and an iron rod was placed in his leg. 7 and has also produced his caste certificate at Exh. 9. The witness has stated that he was taken to Aastha Hospital at Dholka and he was admitted for 22 days at Aastha Hospital for treatment. He had sustained a fracture and had to be operated upon and an iron rod was placed in his leg. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the iron rod was placed in the right leg and the incident has occurred because his cattle were grazing in the field. At the time of the incident, the accused no. 1 was in his field and the place of offence was shown by his brother Manubhai. At the time of the incident, there was a flood and the land was wet and slippery and in the incident he was not injured on the head. 8.1 The prosecution has examined PW2 – Narendrabhai Fulabhai at Exh. 10 and PW6 - Lagharbai Nathabai Dhabi at Exh. 17. Both the witnesses are the panch witnesses of the arrest panchnama by which the accused no. 1 was arrested which is produced at Exh. 11. The witnesses have stated that no panchnama was drawn in their presence and they have merely identified their signature on the panchnama. Both the witnesses have been declared hostile and have been cross-examined by the learned APP. 8.2 The prosecution has examined PW3 – Dr. Ashishbhai Kamleshkumar Mehta at Exh. 12 who was the Medical Officer of Aastha Orthopaedic Hospital. The witness has stated that on 29.07.2005, a patient named Khanabhai Motibhai Jadhav was brought to his hospital for treatment and he had sustained a fracture on his right leg. The patient was admitted from 29.07.2005 till 20.08.2005 as an indoor patient and the certificate is produced at Exh. 13. The injury could be sustained by a hard and blunt substance and during the cross-examination, the witness has stated that the patient did not come with any police yadi and did not give any history about his injury. The injury that was sustained by the patient could also be sustained if a person falls down on any hard substance. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Prabhubhai Chikabhai Jadav at Exh. 14 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 15. The injury that was sustained by the patient could also be sustained if a person falls down on any hard substance. 8.3 The prosecution has examined PW4 – Prabhubhai Chikabhai Jadav at Exh. 14 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 15. The witness has supported the case of the prosecution, but during the cross-examination, he has stated that he had not read the paper on which he had affixed his signature and he does not know anything except affixing his signature on the panchnama. 8.4 The prosecution has examined PW5 – Govindbhai Punjabhai Jadav at Exh. 16 and the witness is the panch witness of the panchnama of the place of offence which is produced at Exh. 15. The witness has not supported the case of the prosecution. 8.5 The prosecution has examined PW7 - Kanubhai Jashubhai Bharwadat Exh. 18 and the witness has stated that he is the owner of Jeep bearing registration no. GJ-1- HD-5639 and on 29.07.2005, he was waiting with his jeep on the road of Varna village at around 12 noon and five to six persons were standing and one of them was injured and they wanted to take the injured person to hospital. All of them sat in his vehicle and they wanted to go to Dholka but they asked him to take them to Koth Police Station. He sat in his vehicle and they went inside in the Koth Police Station and he does not know what had occurred thereafter. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that the five to six persons seated in his vehicle were discussing that the injured had slipped onto the slippery mud in the field as it was monsoon season and the injured was kept in the vehicle and the others had gone into the Koth Police Station to file the complaint. 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Dahyabhai Koyabhai at Exh. 19 and the witness was working as an ASI at the Koth Police Station when the complainant had come to file the complaint which is produced at Exh. 7 and the witness had registered the complaint at Koth Police Station II – C.R. No. 54/2005. 8.6 The prosecution has examined PW8 - Dahyabhai Koyabhai at Exh. 19 and the witness was working as an ASI at the Koth Police Station when the complainant had come to file the complaint which is produced at Exh. 7 and the witness had registered the complaint at Koth Police Station II – C.R. No. 54/2005. The witness has stated that initially the complaint was filed under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and thereafter, the allegations under the Atrocity Act were made and hence, the investigation was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that he had read the complaint and had drawn the panchnama of the place of offence and had also arrested the accused and drawn the panchnama of the arrest of the accused but till then no offence under the Atrocity Act was made out. 8.7 The prosecution has examined PW9 - Lallubhai Haribhai Desai at Exh. 22 and the witness is the Investigating Officer who has filed the charge sheet against the accused. The witness has stated that as the sections under the Atrocity Act were added, he had taken over the investigation and had collected the caste certificate of the complainant and had filed the charge sheet. During the cross-examination, the witness has stated that during investigation it was found that there was no injury on the head of the complainant whereas in the charge sheet in column no. 5, it is stated that there was an injury on the head of the complainant but no evidence to this effect was found during investigation. During the investigation, it was not found that any caste abuses were used by the accused and the incident did not occur due to the caste of the complainant. The original caste certificate was not seized and only a zerox copy was taken and the certificate was not verified from the Competent Authority and no such evidence was placed in the charge sheet. Moreover, during investigation, the opinion of the doctor as to whether the weapon seized could cause the injury, was not taken. 9. The original caste certificate was not seized and only a zerox copy was taken and the certificate was not verified from the Competent Authority and no such evidence was placed in the charge sheet. Moreover, during investigation, the opinion of the doctor as to whether the weapon seized could cause the injury, was not taken. 9. On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution the complainant - PW1 – Khanabhai Motibhai Jadhav has not stated that any caste slurs were used by the accused at the time of the incident and even the complaint at Exh. 7 does not state that the accused had used any abuses or caste slurs against the complainant. The medical certificate produced at Exh. 13 does not state the history given to the Medical Officer and as per the case of the prosecution, the complainant and others had gone in the vehicle of PW7 - Kanubai Jasubhai Bharwad to the Koth Police Station and even PW7 - Kanubai Jasubhai Bharwad has stated that he had taken the injured and the others with him to the Koth Police Station but no yadi for treatment was given by the police. The witness has further stated that when they went to the Police Station, the injured was in the jeep and the rest of the persons with him had gone in and filed the complaint. Moreover, the charge sheet and the charge at Exh. 3 states that the complainant was injured on the head but the medical certificate produced at Exh. 13 does not show any injury on the head of the complainant. The injury sustained by the complainant, as per the evidence of PW3 - Dr. Ashish Kamleshkumar Mehta at Exh. 12 and the medical certificate produced at Exh. 13 show that the injury was on the right side femur bone of the complainant. In the evidence, the complainant has stated that he was injured on the right flank and there is no evidence regarding any injury caused to the complainant on his right flank. Moreover, the complaint at Exh. 7 does not mention any allegations about the Atrocity Act and there is no iota of evidence as to how Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act was added in the FIR. 10. Moreover, the complaint at Exh. 7 does not mention any allegations about the Atrocity Act and there is no iota of evidence as to how Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act was added in the FIR. 10. 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. 11. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned 3 rd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Mirzapur in Special Atrocity Case No. 34/2010 on 31.10.2012, is hereby confirmed. 12. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.