JUDGMENT :

[Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.]

The appeal is heard on admission.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment of acquittal dated 29.04.2009 passed by the learned Eighth Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C., Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 233 of 2006, whereby the respondents/accused persons have been acquitted of the charges under Sections 120B, 419, 365 and 395 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The case of the prosecution, is that, on 19.03.2006, Pradeep Singh (PW-1) and Jitesh Prajapati (PW-2) stayed in Room No. 305 of Vinayak Hotel, Malviya Road, Raipur and they were carrying Diamond, Ruby and other jewels for sale worth Rs.10,00,000/-. On the same date, at about 10:00 pm, four persons entered into their room. Respondent No.6 – Probir @ Praveer Banerjee impersonated as CBI Officer and they informed the complainant and his companion that they have come for enquiry regarding the smuggling of the diamonds. Thereafter, the complainant and his companion were taken near Kotwali Police Station and all jewels were looted from their possession. On a written complaint (Ex.P/6) of Jitesh Prajapati (PW-2), First Information Report (Ex.P/7) was registered. The Diamond Businessman i.e. Pradeep Singh (PW-1) was abducted. After due investigation, the police arrested present respondents vide (Ex.P/21 to Ex.P/26), Identification Parade was conducted vide (Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/5), memorandum statements were recorded vide (Ex.P/7A to Ex.P/13), Diamond, Yamaha Motorcycle, Hero Honda Motorcycle, I-Card, one Nokia Mobile and one Bajaj Caliber Motorcycle were seized vide (Ex.P/14 to Ex.P/20). The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The purchase receipts of the diamond were seized vide (Ex.P/30 to Ex.P/36). After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur and the same was committed to the learned Sessions Court for deciding the case on merits. Learned trial Court framed charges for the offence punishable under Sections 120B, 419, 365 and 395 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The respondents/ accused abjured the guilt and took the plea that they have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in the case.

3. The statements of the accused persons under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded and one defense witness, Safdar Ali (DW-1), was examined by the accused persons.

4. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitted all the accused persons, who are respondents in this acquittal appeal vide judgment dated 29.04.2009 assigning the reasons in paragraph No.36 of the judgment, which are as under :

^^36@& 'ks"k vfHk;qDrx.k bUnzuhy Ms] eksgu fo'odekZ ,oa izksohj mQZ izksfcj csuthZ ds laca/k esa izLrqr lk{; ds fo'ys"k.k mijkar lkf{k;ksa ds dFku esa vU; NksVs&eksVs folaxfr;ksa dks ;fn utj vankt Hkh dj fn;k tk, rks eq[; fojks/kkHkk"k vkSj folaxfr tks nf'kZr gksrh gS og fuEu gS %&

1& iznhi flax dqy fdruh jkf'k dher ds ghjs tokgjkr fdlds ikl ls ysdj vk;k Fkk og larks"ktud lk{; ls izekf.kr ugha gSA

2& izkFkhZ iznhi flax ds miyC/k jgus ds ckn Hkh izn'kZ ih&7 dh izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ ftrs'k iztkifr ls fy[kok, tkus ls ?kksj lansg dh fLFkfr fufeZr gksrh gSA

3& izkFkhZ iznhi flax rFkk ftrs'k iztkifr ds dFku rFkk iqfyl c;ku vkSj foospd ds dFku vkSj dk;Zokgh esa iznhi flax ds ikl ;fn dksbZ ghjs tokgjkr Fks rks mudh dher ds ckjs esa xaHkhj fojks/kkHkk"k ekStwn gSA

4& foospd us izn'kZ ih&34] ih&35] ih&36 ds ftu nLrkostksa dks iznhi ds ghjksa dk fcy crk;k gS mDr fcy tkjh djus ds laca/k esa daiuh ls iwNrkN dj mUgsa xokg Hkh ugha cuk;k gS rFkk iznhi flax foospd dks mDr fcy nsus ckcr~ dksbZ dFku ugha djrk gS cfYd og tkaxMcqd ykuk dgrk gS ftls vfHk;qDr izchj }kjk QkM+ fn;k tkuk dgrk gS tks ?kksj lansg dks tUe nsrk gSA

5& izn'kZ ih&6 vkSj ih&7 dh fjiksVZ esa ftl ijs'k HkkbZ ds ikl ls iznhi flax ghjs ysdj vk;k Fkk ;g mYysf[kr gS ml ijs'k HkkbZ dks ugha tkuuk iznhi flax us dgk gS rFkk vfHk;kstu mDr dfF