An appellate court can only reverse an acquittal if evidence is insufficient or misapprehended; doubts favoring the accused must be resolved in their favor.

JUDGMENT :

G BASAVARAJA, J.

The State has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Presiding officer, Special Court for Economic Offences at Bengaluru in C.C No.766/2003 dated 26.09.2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The brief facts leading to this appeal are that the Inspector of RPF, Bangalore Cantonment Bangalore has laid the charge sheet against accused No.1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 3 (a) of the RP(UP) Act, 1966.

4. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 26.12.2002 at about 06:10 hours, the complainant along with his staff were on confidential watch duty at Kogilu Cross, Near NH-7 Road, Yelahanka, Bangalore. During that time, the Accused No.1, was going towards Eastern side from Southern side with an aluminum sheet folded in his left shoulder armpit. On suspicion, he was detained and during the enquiry, the accused No.1 was questioned about his identity and how he came in possession of Railway Property. He revealed his name as K.Selvam, working as Track-Man, Gang No.8, Yelahanka, under the control of P.W.1, Yelahanka. Further, the accused No.1 has stated that he was taking Aluminum Reflective Board to dispose in the scrap shop for monetary benefits and also confessed that he had committed theft of similar type of materials in the premises of Old PW1/O/YNK and he volunteered to point out the spot where he had stolen Railway Reflective Boards and the scrap shop in which he had disposed off stolen Railway Materials. On further enquiry, the accused No.1 failed to give satisfactory explanation regarding the possession of the said properties and he has not produced any bill or voucher for such property. Thus, the accused has committed the alleged offence.

5. After filing the charge-sheet, the case was registered in C.C No.766/2003, the charges were framed by the trial Court and same were read over and explained to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

6. To prove the case of prosecution, in all, 9 witnesses were examined as PWs1 to 9 and 25 documents were marked as Exhibits P1 to P25 and three Material Objects were marked as MOs.1 to 3. On closure of prosecution side evidence, statement of the accused under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded. The accused totally denied the evidence of prosecution witness but have not chosen to lead any defence evidence on their behalf.

7. Having heard the arguments on both the sides, the trial Court acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred this appeal.

8. The Learned High Court Government Pleader Sri Rangaswamy.R submitted that the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court below is contrary to law. Evidence and materials were placed on record. PW1 and PW5 categorically deposed before the Court that they recorded the statement of accused No.2 and the confessional statement of accused No.1, and on the said confessional statement the police have searched the shop of accused No.2 and conducted mahazar in the presence of panchas and recorded the statement which clearly establishes that both the accused have committed the alleged offence. The trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record in accordance with law and facts and sought for allowing this appeal.

9. Sri.Desu Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.2, remained absent and unrepresented. Hence, arguments on behalf of the respondents is taken as nil.

10. Having heard the arguments of learned High Court Gov