ORDER : J. C. Doshi, J. 1. The State has preferred this appeal under Section 378 (1) (3) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (for short “Cr.P.C.), challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 06.04.2010 passed by the learned 3 rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Surat, in Special Atrocity Case No.29 of 2008, acquitting the accused Bhamvarsinh Vajesinh Rajput in the offence under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”) along with Section 3(i)(x) of the Schedule Casts and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short “Atrocity Act”). 2. For convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their original status as complainant and accused. 3. By order dated 20.11.2024, this court has joined the original complainant Thakorbhai Vanjibhai Chaudhari as party respondent to the present appeal. Mr. Aditya Choksi, learned advocate, pursuant to service of process to original complainant, remain to represent him. 4. Brief facts for preferring the present appeal are as under: 4.1. FIR bearing CR. No.II-50/2008 filed by the complainant Thakorbhai Vanjibhai Chaudhari with Mangrol Police Station, District-Surat on 29.09.2008 with the allegation that around 02:30 pm. complainant and witness Jagubhai Chaudhari went to the ofÏce of the accused situated near Jalaram cold drinks to execute registered sale deed for purchase of plot, but the accused has denied to execute sale deed and spoken in insulting language in public to the complainant and as well as by telling subsequent words intentionally, knowing fully well that the complainant and witness are the members of the Schedule Casts and Schedule Tribes community and beat with the mobile phone which is in his arm at the face and forehead of the complainant and also gave threat to kill the complainant. 4.2 This alleged incident has been recorded in the FIR for the offence punishable under Section 323 , 504, 506(2) of the IPC along with Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocity Act. Investigating ofÏcer carried out usual investigation and found sufÏcient material to place the accused to trial before the Special Court. 4.3. Learned Trial Court after considering the case and hearing both sides, framed charge at Exh.9 against the accused. In plea, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence, the special case was rested for production of prosecution evidence. 4.4. 4.3. Learned Trial Court after considering the case and hearing both sides, framed charge at Exh.9 against the accused. In plea, accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, hence, the special case was rested for production of prosecution evidence. 4.4. In order to bring home charge against accused, the prosecution has examined following oral as well as documentary evidence. Oral Evidence Sr No. Name of Person Particular Exhibit 1 Dahyabhai Mansukhbhai Makwana. Witness 11 2 Jagubhai Bhagiyabhai Chaudhari. Witness 12 3 Satishbhai Damodarbhai Nayak. Witness 13 4 Bharatbhai Kikabhai Gamit. Panch 14 5 Jitendrabhai Naginbhai Chaudhari. Panch 16 6 Thakorbhai Valjibhai Chaudhari. Complainant 17 7 Dr. Bipinkumar Ramnandsing. Doctor 22 8 Sanmukhbhai Somabhai Vasava. Panch 24 9 Hasmukhbhai Sultanbhai Ninama. Investigating OfÏcer 27 Documentary Evidence Sr No. Particular Exhibit 1 Panchnama of the spot of incident. 15 2 Complaint. 18 3 Treatment / injury certificate of the complainant. 23 4 Arrest Panchnama of the accused. 25 5 Cast certificate of the complainant. 28 6 Address proof of the accused. 29 7 Income and cast certificate of the accused. 30 8 Suchipatra. 31 4.5 At the end of the prosecution’s evidence, learned Trial Court has recorded further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., whereby accused denied the incriminating evidence against him and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the alleged offence. Argument from learned advocates for both the side was heard. 4.6. After hearing the learned advocates for both the sides, learned 3 rd Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Surat, being Special Judge for atrocity cases did not find any offence to the effect beyond reasonable doubt to prove the charges leveled against the accused. Accordingly the learned Special Judge by judgment and order dated 06.04.2010 passed in Special Atrocity Case No.29 of 2008 acquitted the accused from the charges leveled against him. 4.7. Hence, this appeal. 5. First of all, the arguments of the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor along with learned advocate for the complainant are that the learned Trial Court has committed grievous error in passing impugned order in atrocity case by acquitting the accused. It is further argued that the evidence of the witnesses though fully supported the case of the prosecution, but without reason they have been discarded by learned Trial Court and passed impugned order without application of mind. It is further argued that the evidence of the witnesses though fully supported the case of the prosecution, but without reason they have been discarded by learned Trial Court and passed impugned order without application of mind. Further arguments are made in the line on the grounds mentioned in appeal memo. Thus, arguments are canvassed by learned APP, so also learned advocate for the complainant to quash and set aside the impugned order and pass order to convict the accused for the offence for which the charges leveled against him. 6. Mr. Damor, learned advocate representing accused, would firstly support impugned Judgment and Order recording acquittal. Secondly would submit that star witnesses have failed to support complainant. In absence of support, deposition of complainant alone, is insufÏcient to prove charge. He would also submits that, rest of independent witness accepted that, they did not reach to spot of incident, which indicate and establish that they are not eye witnesses. Their deposition, thus, are worthless. Complaint is injured person, his deposition alone without being corroboration, is unsustainable. 6.1. Learned advocate further submit that learned Trial Court has appreciated evidence and recorded acquittal. This court sitting in appeal, should restrain form interfering the impugned judgment and order until arrived at conclusion after re- appreciation of evidence that learned Trial Court has committed gross and palpable error. 6.2. In nutshell, learned advocate submits that appeal sans merit, and deserves to be abridged. 7. Heard learned advocate for both the sides and having perused the paper book as well as impugned judgment and order. 8. Learned Trial Court has acquitted the accused after perusing to every set of evidence. Presumption of innocence of the accused running since beginning would double on him, as is acquitted by the competent court. In these circumstances, the prosecution required to establish a standard of proof to such a degree, that the learned court below has erred to that extent in understanding facts and provision of law, that person of ordinary prudent would not do, and also impugned judgment is against the settled principle of law. It is equally important to note that in an acquittal appeal, if two view are possible, the views in favour of the accused has to be accepted. 9. In background of above aspects, let refer the charges framed against accused which as under. It is equally important to note that in an acquittal appeal, if two view are possible, the views in favour of the accused has to be accepted. 9. In background of above aspects, let refer the charges framed against accused which as under. “On 29.09.2008 at 14:30 hours, at opposite Jalaram cold drinks in Vankal market, complainant Thakorbhai Vanjibhai Chaudhari along with witness Jagubhai Chaudhari came to you accused for making sale deed of plot, you accused instigated and abused complainant, spoken derogatory words in public lowering the complainant on his cast, hit with mobile to face and head part of complainant, threat to kill him, made rigorous punishable crime under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) of the IPC and Section 3(i)(x) of the Atrocity Act, in the jurisdiction of this court.” 10. The prosecution examined complainant Mr. Dahyabhai Mansukhbhai Makwana as PW-1, he has deposed that when the incident took place he was sitting in his shop, meanwhile he has seen accused pushing Thakorbhai. He further deposed that he knew that dispute was going on between accused and Thakorbhai. He further deposed that when accused was intended to hit Thakorbhai with his mobile instrument, at that time he came and separated both of them from fight. He has further deposed that accused has spoken derogatory words to Thakorbhai lowering him on his cast. In cross examination, he has admitted that he was belonging to Schedule Casts and Schedule Tribes Society. He has further admitted that he does not know whether any dispute exists regarding the plot between complainant and accused. He has also admitted that spot of incident is situated in residential as well as market area and there were many passerby continuing at the noon time. He has further admitted that amongst them, many people gathered at the spot of incident. He has further admitted that at the time of incident, he was busy in his business and did not go to the spot of incident. 11. Prosecution has examined Mr. Jagubhai Bhagiyabhai Chaudhari as PW-2, he has deposed that complainant Thakorbhai is residing beside his home and further deposed that he belongs to Chaudhari community. He has further deposed that Patel and Company was arranging for plots naming Bhulapark, and he has purchased two plots in that scheme. 11. Prosecution has examined Mr. Jagubhai Bhagiyabhai Chaudhari as PW-2, he has deposed that complainant Thakorbhai is residing beside his home and further deposed that he belongs to Chaudhari community. He has further deposed that Patel and Company was arranging for plots naming Bhulapark, and he has purchased two plots in that scheme. He has further deposed that he has paid installments to the said plots to Rupchandbhai who was selling plots of Patel corporation. He has further deposed that accused Bhavarsinh was also selling plots. He has further deposed that when the incident taken place, he was standing out side of Jalaram cold drink. He has further deposed that when Thakorbhai, Satishbhai and he was asking about plot to the accused at near Jalaram cold drink, at that time upon asking by Thakorbhai, accused instigated and hit his mobile instrument on the head of the Thakorbhai and accused spoke in filthy and abusive language. In his cross examination, he has admitted that plot has purchased in the year 2001. He has admitted that he did not know that Hanifbhai and Rajubhai are doing business for Patel Land Corporation. He has further admitted that sale deed has been made by Rupchandbhai. He has further admitted that as per the say of the Rupchandbhai he went to meet the Bhavarbhai. He has further admitted that there are many shops near spot of incident and many people are coming there. He has further admitted that many people have seen the incident. He has also admitted that he and complainant belong to the same community. He has further admitted that he did not know that whether accused has abused the complainant and spoken words to complainant lowering on his cast. 12. The third witness Satishbhai Damodarbhai Nayak PW-3 deposed alike PW-2. The Prosecution has examined Bharatbhai Kikabhai Gamit as PW-4. He is panch witness but did not support the panchnama. The another witness of panchnama is PW-5, even he did not support the panchnama. 13. The complainant Thakorbhai is examined as PW-6. He deposed that he purchased plot from the accused hence asked to execute sale deed. He has further deposed that plot is belonging to Patel and Corporation. He is panch witness but did not support the panchnama. The another witness of panchnama is PW-5, even he did not support the panchnama. 13. The complainant Thakorbhai is examined as PW-6. He deposed that he purchased plot from the accused hence asked to execute sale deed. He has further deposed that plot is belonging to Patel and Corporation. He has further deposed that upon asking to make sale deed for the purchase of plot, Bhavarsinh i.e. accused has instigated and spoken words in derogatory language to him and abused him and also threatened him. He has been thoroughly cross examined. 14. Apart from the aforesaid witnesses, the prosecution has examined Dr. Bipinkumar Ramnandansing as PW-7, who has examined complainant and issued medical certificate. Another panch witnesses are also examined. 14.1. Appreciation of aforesaid evidence, does not inspire learned trial court to believe that charges leveled against accused are proved sufÏciently with degree of beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, learned Trial Court acquitted accused. 15. Re-appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, in background of the allegation of offence under Sections 323 , 504, 506(2) of the IPC, according to the complainant and witness, accused by mobile instrument has beaten the complainant and caused injury in head. The medical certificate at Exhibit 23 issued by Dr. Bipinkumar recorded the following finding. “Patient was ambulatory, his general condition was fair, vitals were within normal limit and pupils were equal and reacting to light. Locally injuries were found. 1. Vague swelling of size approximately 1 inch x inch on lateral aspect of left side of frontal region of scalp. 2. No obvious injury on left maxillary region Age of injury : / 24 hrs. Opinion : Above mentioned injury is simple in nature and likely to be caused by hard and blunt substance / and may heal up within 1 day/week if no complication occurs.” 16. As per the deposition of the doctor, injury which was sustained by the complainant is about one inch and occurred by hard and blunt substance. It was vague swelling, except that no other hurt was recorded. Thus, allegation leveled in the FIR, mismatch with medical evidence. No injury is found on the forehead and lower part of head. Except swelling, no injury was found in the lower part of concerned region. Therefore, there is nothing to sustain to charge of the Section 323 of the IPC. Thus, allegation leveled in the FIR, mismatch with medical evidence. No injury is found on the forehead and lower part of head. Except swelling, no injury was found in the lower part of concerned region. Therefore, there is nothing to sustain to charge of the Section 323 of the IPC. The claim of the complainant could not be visualized in medical evidence. To attract and establish the offence under Sections 504 and 506(2) of the IPC, the prosecution failed to prove intention of the accused to provoke break of public peace. In other words, the accused has intentionally insult the complainant or injured person and provoke the complainant or to any other person to break the public peace or commit any offence. In so far as evidence, to prove offence under Section 506(2) is concerned, prosecution needed to prove criminal intimidation defined in Section 503 of the IPC. It occurs when someone threatens another person with injury to their person, reputation, or property with the intent to cause alarm to that person. The evidence led by the prosecution even if considered on the face of it, none of aforesaid ingredients of the offence under Section 503 of the IPC are attracted. 17. In so far as a charge of ofÏce under section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, which reads as under:- Section 3(1)(x) in The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. (x)corrupts or fouls the water of any spring, reservoir or any other source ordinarily used by members of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used;” 18. Explaining the provision of section 3(1)(x) of the Atrocity Act, in case of Georige Pentaiah v/s. State of Andra Pradesh [ 2008 (12) SCC 531 ] , Hon’ble Apex Court held and observed that complainant ought to alleged that accused are not member of SC /ST caste and he was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in place within public view. It is submitted that basic ingredients are missing in the FIR, then permitting such complaint to continue and to compel the accused to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. 19. It is submitted that basic ingredients are missing in the FIR, then permitting such complaint to continue and to compel the accused to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. 19. In case on hand, except bald allegation that accused has told complainant by his cast, no other allegations are leveled. The bald allegations are insufÏcient to prove offence under section 3(1)(x) of Atrocity Act. Moreover, none of the witness deposed about any specific words that accused has spoken to the complainant and that too with intention to lowering him from caste that complainant being a member of Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribes society. The judgment of the learned Trial Court impugned in the appeal is full of satisfactory reasons to discard the evidence of the prosecution or rather evidence led by prosecution are not befitting with the essential requirements to constitute offence, for which charge was framed. Learned Trial Court therefore, acquitted the accused on the aforesaid charge and rightly. This court does not see any error in the impugned judgment passed by learned Trial Court. 20. What could be noticeable that the learned trial Court, in the impugned judgment, has thoroughly evaluated the evidence of the prosecution and ascribed reasons that how the prosecution case fell short of achieving standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”. The findings of the learned trial Court also indicate about existence of sheer contradiction and improvisation in the deposition of star witnesses and that became root cause to stultify prosecution case. In view of above, this Court finds no sufÏcient material to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of recording acquittal. 21. To be noted that since the trial court's judgment has acquitted the accused, it reinforce the presumption of innocence, the appellant State needs to present a much stronger case to overturn the impugned verdict and secure a conviction. 22. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that in an acquittal appeal if other view is possible, then also, the appellate Court cannot substitute its own view by reversing the acquittal into conviction, unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse, contrary to the material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. ( Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 ). ( Ramesh Babulal Doshi V. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225 ). In the instant case, the learned APP for the applicant has not been able to point out to us as to how the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are perverse, contrary to material on record, palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. 23. In the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana , reported in AIR 1995 SC 280 , Supreme Court has held as under: “The powers of the High Court in an appeal from order of acquittal to reassess the evidence and reach its own conclusions under Sections 378 and 379, Cr.P.C. are as extensive as in any appeal against the order of conviction. But as a rule of prudence, it is desirable that the High Court should give proper weight and consideration to the view of the Trial Court with regard to the credibility of the witness, the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused, the right of the accused to the benefit of any doubt and the slowness of appellate Court in justifying a finding of fact arrived at by a Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witness. It is settled law that if the main grounds on which the lower Court has based its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible, and the same cannot entirely and effectively be dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the order of acquittal." 24. As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2011) 11 SCC 444 and in the case of Bhaiyamiyan Alias Jardar Khan and Another vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in (2011) 6 SCC 394 , while dealing with the judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by the learned trial Court is found to be perverse, the acquittal cannot be upset. It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if the view taken by the learned trial Court is possible on the evidence, the High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in the matter in the belief that if it had been the trial Court, it might have taken a different view. 25. 25. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 26. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present Criminal Appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bond stands cancelled.