JUDGMENT : S.V. PINTO, J. 1. The appeal is filed by the appellant State under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Special Atrocity Case No. 52/2012 on 27.10.2015, whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 406 , 420, 504 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(10) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as “the Atrocity Act” for short). 1.1 The respondent is hereinafter referred to as “the accused” as he 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 Seemaben - daughter of Sadabai Dhanjibhai Rathod was in a relationship with the accused and as both of them were unmarried, they had decided to get married. On 22.03.2011, the accused told the complainant that he had booked a flat for them in Naroda to live after their marriage and took gold ornaments worth Rs. 6,20,000/- from her. The complainant informed her parents and her brother that she had given the ornaments to the accused and on 16.02.2011 at around 21.10 hours, the accused called Gaurangbhai - the brother of the complainant on his mobile no. 9998953174 from his mobile no. 8511405330 and abused the complainant and his brother and threatened to kill him and hurled caste slurs against the complainant and her brother. The complainant filed a complaint at the Mehsana 'B' Division Police Station under Sections 406 , 420, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which was registered at Mehsana 'B' Division Police Station I - C.R. No. 49 of 2011. The complainant filed a complaint at the Mehsana 'B' Division Police Station under Sections 406 , 420, 504 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(1)(10) of the Atrocity Act which was registered at Mehsana 'B' Division Police Station I - C.R. No. 49 of 2011. 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 the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mehsana and as the said offences against the accused were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Mehsana as per the provisions of Section 209 of Code of Criminal Procedure and the case was registered as Special Atrocity Case No. 52/2012. 2.3 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 at Exh. 5 was framed against the accused and the statement of the accused was recorded at Exh. 6 wherein, the accused denied the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. 2.4 The prosecution examined 8 witnesses and produced 11 documentary evidences on record in support of their case 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 was recorded. 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 judgement and order was pleased to acquit the accused from the charges levelled against him. 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 respondent. The case has been proved beyond reasonable doubts and the prosecution has successfully established the case against the respondent 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. Rohan Shah for the appellant State and learned advocate Mr. Devendra Rana for the respondent no. 2. Though served, the respondent no. 1 has not remained present 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. Rohan Shah with learned advocate Mr. Devendra Rana have jointly 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 illegal and have urged this Court to quash and set aside the same and find the respondent guilty for the offences. 6. 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. 7. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined eight witnesses. PW1 – Seemaben Sadabhai Rathod examined at Exh. 22 is the complainant and she has narrated all the facts as stated in her written complaint which is produced at Exh. 23. The complainant has also produced her caste certificate at Exh. 26. 7. To prove the offence against the accused, the prosecution has in all examined eight witnesses. PW1 – Seemaben Sadabhai Rathod examined at Exh. 22 is the complainant and she has narrated all the facts as stated in her written complaint which is produced at Exh. 23. The complainant has also produced her caste certificate at Exh. 26. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that she has completed her M.A. and she was coming to Mehsana for her study and she met the accused while he was coming from Ahmedabad to Radhanpur Crossroads. The complainant has stated that on 16.04.02.2011 when she went to Ahmedabad to the house of the accused, she did not meet anyone and she had given a typed written complaint in the Police Station which is produced at Exh. 23. 7.1 PW2 – Sadabhai Dhanjibhai Rathod examined at Exh. 28 is the father of the complainant and he has fully supported the case of the prosecution. The witness has stated that the gold jewellery consisted of 6 rings, 6 chains, 1 beaded chain, 3 pairs of earrings, 1 pair of bangles, 2 pendants and 1 nose ring and during the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that in his statement before the police, he has not described the ornaments were given to the accused. The witness has admitted that he came to know about the incident from his daughter and son and when they had gone to the house of the accused, he did not inquire anything from the neighbours. He had never met the accused earlier. 7.2 PW3 – Gaurang Sadabhai Rathod examined at Exh. 30 is the brother of the complainant who has supported the case of the prosecution and he has stated that his sister had told him about the incident. On 16.02.2011 they had gone to Ahmedabad to the house of the accused but the accused was not present and they had spoken to his grandfather and thereafter, the accused telephoned his brother on phone no. 9898953114 and asked them to leave his house. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had never spoken to the accused in-person and he has no personal information about the incident. 7.3 PW4 – Ashokbhai Narandas Soni examined at Exh. 9898953114 and asked them to leave his house. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he had never spoken to the accused in-person and he has no personal information about the incident. 7.3 PW4 – Ashokbhai Narandas Soni examined at Exh. 31 has stated that he was having a shop of gold and silver ornaments at Pimpan and was making gold ornaments and Sadabhai had come to his shop and made some ornaments. During the cross-examination by the learned advocate for the accused, the witness has stated that he has to maintain the books about any ornaments given and made new by the customers and he also has to give them a receipt for the sale but he has no note or receipt about any ornaments made by Sadabhai. He has no bill regarding the labour work done on any ornaments. 7.4 PW5 – Nirav Rajendrakumar Raval examined at Exh. 32 is the friend of the accused who has stated that he was working in a parlour near Janpath Hotel in the year 2011 and was being paid a salary of Rs. 1500/- per month. He used to sit on the pan shop and the police had come and asked him about the accused and he had told the police that the accused used to come to the pan shop for 5 to 10 minutes. 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 but during the cross-examination, no evidence that the accused and the complainant used to come to his pan shop and he was aware about the relationship between them, has come on record. 7.5 PW6 – Maganbhai Malabhai Desai examined at Exh. 34 is the PSO who has registered the complaint and has produced the extract of the Station Diary at Exh. 37. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint was filed in writing which was dated 19.03.2011 but it was received on 22.03.2011. 7.6 PW7 – Ravindrakumar Damabhai Gamit examined at Exh. 41 is the Investigating Officer who has stated that he had partly investigated the offence as the Incharge Dy.S.P., SC/ST Cell for a short period. 37. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that the complaint was filed in writing which was dated 19.03.2011 but it was received on 22.03.2011. 7.6 PW7 – Ravindrakumar Damabhai Gamit examined at Exh. 41 is the Investigating Officer who has stated that he had partly investigated the offence as the Incharge Dy.S.P., SC/ST Cell for a short period. During the cross- examination, the witness has stated that he did not record the statement of the complainant and no panchnama was drawn by him regarding the place where the ornaments were given or the place where the ornaments were placed. No panchnama of the house of the accused was drawn and no panchnama of the place where the caste slurs and abuses were hurled has been drawn by him. During the investigation, no statements of any friends of the complainant or Nareshbhai Raval, Jeevanbhai Choudhury, Sanjaybhai or Pushpaben were recorded. During the investigation, it was found that the keys of the cupboard where the ornaments were placed were with the complainant and besides the say of the complainant, no other evidence was found regarding the ornaments. The phone of the complainant or the accused were not seized and it was stated that the ornaments belonged to Pushpaben but the statement of Pushpaben was not recorded. No document or receipt from the jeweller about the ornaments was seized and the complainant did not state that the accused used to come everyday from Ahmedabad to Mehsana in the complaint. 7.7 PW8 – Kalabhai Maldebhai Varu examined at Exh. 42 is the Investigating Officer who has narrated the procedure undertaken by him during investigation. During the cross-examination, the witness has admitted that from 21.03.2011 to 31.03.2011, he did not record the statements of any witnesses and during investigation, he has not recorded the statements of any neighbours of the accused at Khadia. During investigation, it was not found that the card was in the name of the accused and he did not verify the mobile phone call details of Neeravbhai and did not recover any muddamaal from the accused. The cell phone of the accused was not seized during investigation. 8. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the say of the complainant, she had taken gold ornaments of Rs. 6,20,000/- from her house and had given them to the accused but in the complaint produced at Exh. The cell phone of the accused was not seized during investigation. 8. On appreciation of the entire evidence of the prosecution, as per the say of the complainant, she had taken gold ornaments of Rs. 6,20,000/- from her house and had given them to the accused but in the complaint produced at Exh. 33, the complainant has described the ornaments but in her deposition before the learned Trial Court she has not described the ornaments were given. There is no documentary evidence regarding any gold ornaments on record or where the ornaments were purchased or prepared or that they were ever in existence in the possession of the complainant or her family members. During investigation, no panchnama of the place where the jewellery was kept has been drawn and it has emerged on record that PW2 - Sadabhai Dhanjibhai Rathod - the father of the complainant and PW3 - Gaurangbhai Sadabhai Rathod - the brother of the complainant were not aware about the transaction between the complainant and the accused. Both the witnesses had never met the accused and no ornaments were recovered from the accused during investigation and hence, there is no iota of evidence regarding any gold jewellery on record. The complainant has stated that she had given the ornaments to the accused as he had stated that he had booked a flat in Naroda but besides this fact, no other details of any flat or the name of the building where the flat was booked, has come on record. The complainant has stated that they would meet at the paan shop of Nareshbhai Raval but they said Nareshbhai Raval has not been examined before the learned Trial Court. PW5 - Neerav Rajendrakumar Raval has been examined but the witness has not supported the case of the prosecution and has denied that the accused and the complainant would meet at his paan shop. PW4 - Ashokbhai Narayandas Soni who is a jeweller by profession has stated that the father of the complainant had got some ornaments made at his shop but besides this oral evidence, no other details about the ornaments has come on record. PW4 - Ashokbhai Narayandas Soni who is a jeweller by profession has stated that the father of the complainant had got some ornaments made at his shop but besides this oral evidence, no other details about the ornaments has come on record. There is no iota of evidence that any ornaments were given to the accused by the complainant or that the complainant and the accused were ever in a relationship and any abuses or caste slurs were hurled by the accused at any point of time. The mobile phones of the accused, the complainant and the brother of the complainant have not been seized and there is no evidence that the accused had made a call from his mobile to the mobile of the brother of the accused and has abused him on 16.02.2011. 9. In view of the settled position of law, 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. 10. The impugned judgement and order of acquittal passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocity), Mehsana in Special Atrocity Case No. 52/2012 on 27.10.2015, is hereby confirmed. 11. Bail bond stands cancelled. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.