JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1 . This appeal has been filed by the appellant- State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod (hereinafter referred to as the learned Appellate Court) in Criminal Appeal No. 02 of 2005 on 30.04.2010, whereby, the learned Appellate Court was pleased to acquit the respondents from the offence under Section 143 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(15) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1889 (hereinafter referred to as the Atrocities Act) and convict the respondents and sentenced them to simple imprisonment of one year each for the offence under Section 504 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereafter referred to as "IPC" for short) and to simple imprisonment of one year each for the offence under Section 506 (1) of the IPC. Learned trial Court was further pleased to order that both the sentences were to run concurrently and any period of imprisonment undergone as an under trial prisoners to be given as set off. 1.1 The respondents are hereinafter referred to as the accused in the rank and file 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 The complainant - Navlabhai Maganbhai Harihan had his house on a plot and he wanted to build a pakka house in that plot and had taken down the old house for cooking and due to the immense heat, he had built a tent for shelter and for cooking and on 9-5-2000 while he along with others were at this tent at around 5 p.m., the accused came and abused them and threatened to kill them and broke their tents and hurled caste slurs against them. The complainant filed the complaint being I- C.R.No. 47 of 2000 at Limdi Police Station under Sections 143 , 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) 3(1)(15) of the Atrocities Act. The complainant filed the complaint being I- C.R.No. 47 of 2000 at Limdi Police Station under Sections 143 , 504 and 506(2) of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) 3(1)(15) of the Atrocities Act. 2.2 The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the connected witnesses and seized the necessary documents and after completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dahod and as the said offences against the accused was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Dahod as per the provisions of Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered Sessions Case No. 05 of 2004 (Old case No. 38 of 2001). 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 and a charge at Exh. 2 was framed against the accused and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 3 and 4, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution produced fourteen oral evidences and ten documentary evidences to bring home charge against the accused and after the learned Additional Public Prosecutor filed the closing pursis, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were recorded, wherein, the accused denied all the evidence of the prosecution on record. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and state that a false case has been filed against them. The accused refused to step into the witness box or examine witnesses on their behalf and state that a false case has been filed against them. After the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned advocate for the accused were heard, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment and order was pleased to acquit the respondents from the offence under Section 143 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(10) and 3(1)(15) of the Atrocities Act, 1889 and was pleased to convict and sentence both the accused for the offence under Sections 504 and 506(1) of the IPC convict and sentenced them to simple imprisonment of one year each for the offence under Section 504 of IPC and to simple imprisonment of one year each for the offence under Section 506 (1) of the IPC. 2.5 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction, the respondents filed Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2005 before the Sessions Court, Dahod and after the arguments of the learned advocates for the parties and considering the evidence on record the learned Appellate Judge was pleased to set aside the judgment and order of conviction of the learned trial Court and acquit the the respondents from the offence under Sections 504 and 506(1) of the IPC. 3 . Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgement and order of acquittal, the appellant - State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned appellate Court is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned appellate Court has not appreciated the fact that all the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution and during cross- examination, nothing adverse has been elicited in favour of the respondents. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondents and the judgement and order of acquittal is unwarranted, illegal and without any basis in the eyes of law and the reasons stated while acquitting the respondent are improper, perverse and bad in law. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. H.B.Champavat appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Hence the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned appellate Court deserves to be quashed and set aside. 4. Heard learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. H.B.Champavat appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Though served, the respondent No.3 has not appeared either in person or through an advocate. Perused the impugned judgement and order of acquittal and have reappreciated the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case. 5. Learned APP Mr. Pranav Dhagat has taken this Court through the entire evidence of the prosecution on record of the case and has submitted that the judgment and order of acquittal is contrary to law and evidence on record and the learned appellate Court has not appreciated the direct and indirect evidence in the case. The complainant has supported the case of the prosecution and the witnesses have identified the accused before the learned appellate Court. The prosecution has fully proved the case beyond reasonable doubts but the learned appellate Court has relied on minor contradictions and has given undue weightage with regard to the place of incident. That the order passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, improper and perverse and is required to be quashed and set aside and the appeal of the appellant must be allowed. 6. In light of the above settled principles of law and considering the evidence on the prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution has examined Prosecution Witness No.1 Navlabhai Maganbhai Harijan at Exh.11 and the witness is the complainant, who has narrated the facts as stated in the complaint, which is produced at Exh.13. The witness has stated that, after the incident he and others had given an application, which is produced at Exh.12 against Virendrasinh Rathod and others, whose name he does not know. He had given the application as they had built tents and the accused came and told them that the land was theirs and to get away from the land and they had merely tied the tents as they wanted to build their houses on the land, which was given to them in the government scheme. In the examination- in-chief the witness has stated that they were abused and told to remove the tents and they were threatened that they would be beaten up and their tents were taken and broken. In the examination- in-chief the witness has stated that they were abused and told to remove the tents and they were threatened that they would be beaten up and their tents were taken and broken. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he is illiterate and does not know how to read and write and at the time of the incident, there were many persons, who had gathered there. Around 50 persons had gathered and the witness has stated that he had gone to the Civil Court (Senior Division), Godhara and engaged an advocate in Civil Case No. 127 of 2000. The application at Exh.12 was written by Chinabhai Navibhai, who is a practicing advocate at Jhalod Court and he had affixed his signature. There is a dispute regarding the land going on between Mahendrasinh Motisinh - the father of Virubhai and no panchnama was drawn regarding the application at Exh.12. 6.1 Prosecution Witness No. 2 - Savabhai Maganbhai Harijan examined at Exh. 14 was also along with the complainant, at the time of the incident, and he has supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has identified two of the accused and has stated that the accused had told them to run away from there. In the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that his house is just opposite the police station and there is a road and across the road are shops and the huts were broken on the say of the Sarpanch Govindbapu. He does not know, whom does the land, on which, the huts were construted belongs to and he has no evidence that the land was in his ownership. There is a civil litigation before Civil Court (Senior Division), Godhra and the appeal was pending before the District Court, Godhra. The witness has admitted that there is an ongoing dispute between Mahendrabapu and them about the land. 6.2 Prosecution Witness No. 3 - Lala Balubhai examined at Exh. 15 was also at the place of the incident and he has stated that the accused in a group had come to beat them and the quarrel was regarding the house. They had put up a tent, which was broken by Virubapu and he had abused them and he had a stick in his hand. 15 was also at the place of the incident and he has stated that the accused in a group had come to beat them and the quarrel was regarding the house. They had put up a tent, which was broken by Virubapu and he had abused them and he had a stick in his hand. Virubapu had beaten Navlabhai Maganbhai and they had intervened and they all went to the police station and gave an application to the PSI, Limdi Police Station which is produced at Exh.12. In the cross examination, the witness has stated that there are 12 houses, which are near the main road and there are shops across the road. Around hundred persons had gathered at the time of the incident and there is a dispute pending before the Civil Court at Godhra. He does not know the city survey number or panchayat number of the house and has no documentary evidence about the ownership of the house. 6.3 Prosecution Witness No. 4 - Babubhai Shanabhai Harijan examined at Exh. 16 was also at the place of the incident and has supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross-examination, he has stated that they had gone to the market for getting the application written and it was written by stamp vendor – Limbachiya, who was an advocate. There is a land dispute between Mahendrasinh and the residents of Harijanvas and litigations are pending in the Civil Court at Jhalod and Godhra and Revenue Courts regarding the land. The witness has produced the copy of the injunction application and order dated 14- 10-2002 passed in RTS Appeal No.17 of 2001, which is produced at Exh.17 and Exh.18 respectively. 6.4 Prosecution Witness No. 5 - Sabiben Wd/o Gavjibhai examined at Exh. 19 was also present, at the place of the incident and had affixed her signature on the application at Exh. 12. She has stated that she is illiterate and, at the time of the incident, her brother-in-law had put up a tent, which was broken down by the accused. During the cross examination by the learned avocate for the accused, she has admitted that there were many people present at the place and she does not know whether the police had arrived or not. During the cross examination by the learned avocate for the accused, she has admitted that there were many people present at the place and she does not know whether the police had arrived or not. The entire plot, on which, Harijan Vas is built belongs to Mahendrabapu and she does not know whether Navlabhai had gone to the police station to give the application produced at Exh.12 6.5 Prosecution Witness No. 6 - Suratiben Wd/o Kanubhai Harijan examined at Exh.23 has also supported the case of the prosecution and had affixed a signature on the application at Exh.12 and during the cross examination, she has stated that the quarrel had taken place only with Navlabhai and eleven persons had intervened and gone to release him. The quarrel had taken place on the road and a number of persons had gathered there at the time of the incident. 6.6 Prosecution Witness No. 7 - Maniben Wd/o. Bablabhai at Exh. 23 has also similarly supported the case of the prosecution and during the cross examination has admitted that litigations are pending between them and a number of persons had gathered at the time of the incident. When the incident had occurred, she was in the shed of the shop and as there was a lot of shouting, she had reached the place of incident. She does not know whether cast slurs were used and whether she had stated the same in her statement before the police. 6.7 Prosecution Witness No. 8 - Laljibhai Badiyabhai Chauhan Buckle No.1003 examined at Exh. 24 was working as the PSO at Limdi Police Station and he had registered the application which is produced at Exh.12. 7 . On minute appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 and 506(2) but if the entire evidence is perused, none of the witnesses have stated what threats were given to them or what abuses were used by the accused and there is no evience that the accused had threatened to kill the complainant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod has discussed the entire evidence and has concluded that there is no clear evidence that the offence udner Section 504 and 506(2) of the IPC was made out and has appreciated the application given by the complainant and oher evidence at Exh.12 and found that there was no iota of evidence on record that the accused at the time of incident had threatened the complainant or others with injury to their persons, reputation or property or threatened to cause harm to any of them. 8. In view of the settled position of law, the learned appellate 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 appellate Court has appreciated all the evidence and this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned appellate Court was completely justified in acquitting the accused of the charges leveled against them. The findings recorded by the learned appellate Court are absolutely just and proper and no illegality or infirmity has been committed by the learned appellate Court and this Court is in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the learned appellate 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. 9. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod in Sessions Case No. 02 of 2005 on 30.04.2010, is hereby confirmed. 10. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.