Point of Law:
The High Court while dealing with the appeals against the order of acquittal must keep in mind the following propositions laid down by this Court, namely, (i) the slowness of the appellate court to disturb a finding of fact; (ii) the non-interference with the order of acquittal where it is indeed only a case of taking a view different from the one taken by the High Court.

JUDGMENT :

Bela M. Trivedi, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 372 of Cr.P.C. challenging the judgment and order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the 9th Additional District Judge, Vadodara (hereinafter referred to as 'the Sessions Court') in Sessions Case No. 29 of 2018, whereby the Sessions Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the charges levelled against them for the offences under Section 395, 447, 452, 504, 506(2) and 427 of IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell before the Sessions Court was that the complainant had lodged a complaint on 04.02.2017 before the Vadodara Taluka Police Station alleging inter alia that on 03.02.2017 at about 3:00 p.m., when he was at Sokhda Temple, he was informed by his Supervisor Rasikbhai Gordhanbhai Baria that some people had gathered at his farm namely Amin Ochard Farmhouse. He therefore went to his farmhouse at about 5:30 p.m., and saw that some people had gathered at his farmhouse. He further alleged that in the said crowd, one Samirkhan Salimkhan Pathan along with five other people were present, and Samirkhan had told their names to be Nasir Anwarkhan Sheikh, Mayur Babubhai Vaghela, Paresh Shankar Makwana, Vishal Rajendrasinh and Rahul Mangal Gohil. The complainant had further alleged that the said persons had told him that land of the farmhouse belonged to one Prakashbhai Pandya, and therefore he should vacate the farmhouse otherwise he would have to face the dire consequences. The said crowd thereafter had started damaging his farmhouse by illegally entering into the same. The Investigating Officer after carrying out investigation had submitted the chargesheet in the Court of 7th Additional Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vadodara against the respondents-accused for the alleged offences. The said case being triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of Cr.P.C., wherein it was registered as Sessions Case No. 29 of 2018.

3. The prosecution had examined 10 witnesses and adduced documentary evidence to prove the guilt of the accused. However, the Sessions Court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted all the accused by giving them benefit of doubt vide the impugned judgment and order, against which, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant – original complainant.

4. It is sought to be submitted learned advocate Mr. Virat Popat for the appellant that despite the sufficient evidence against the accused, the Sessions Court had committed error in giving them benefit of doubt, and in acquitting them from the charges levelled against them. According to him, merely because there were lapses in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer, the accused should not be given benefit of such lapses. He further submitted that the appellant–complainant had given the names of all the accused right in the beginning while lodging the complaint, and therefore, there was no question of disputing the identity of the accused, and who otherwise were very headstrong persons and the land grabbers.

5. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellant and to the paper book submitted by him along with the judgment of the Sessions Court, it transpires that though the incident had taken place on 03.02.2017, the complaint was lodged by the complainant on 04.02.2017 in respect of the alleged incident which had taken place in the farmhouse of the complainant. It is pertinent to note that though the complainant – PW-1 i.e. the present appellant had stated in his deposition before the Court that all the accused were caught and arrested on the spot by the police, who had arrived at his farmhouse, in the cross-examination, he had admitted that he did not know any of the accused and was also not knowing about their names and addresses. It is further required to be noted that PW-9 PSI Niravkumar Bhupendrakumar Barot worki