Point of law : where the trial court allows itself to be beset with fanciful doubts, rejects creditworthy evidence for slender reasons and takes a view of the evidence which is but barely possible, it is the obvious duty of the High Court to interfere in the interest of justice, lest the administration of justice be brought to ridicule.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgment and order dated 20.12.2008, passed in Sessions Case No. 147 of 2006 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Himmatnagar camp at Idar, recording the acquittal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.01.2004 at about 19:00 hours complainant along with Head Constable Natvarsinh Shankarsinh, Buckle No. 610, Police Constable Vahidan Joravardan, Buckle No. 784, Police Constable Pravinbhai Nathabhai, Buckle No. 1316 and Police Constable – Kantibhai Punjabhai, Buckle No. 1079 were on petrolling on Vadali Khedbrahma Road. Further, as per the case of the prosecution, while they were returning from Vadali Khedbrahma Road, when they arrived near Shantinagar Society at about 21.00 hours, one Jeep was found lying near Shantinagar and two persons were standing near the Jeep and three persons were seen going towards Shantinagar in the light of Jeep. Therefore, the complainant proceeded towards them and seen in the light of battery, they were found with deadly weapons like Dhariya and Dhoka. It is further the case of the prosecution that two persons, who were standing near the Jeep were also found with Dhariya and Iron Pipe. That, the complainant shouted and asked about their identification, the accused persons who were standing near Shantinagar had ran away from the spot of incident on seeing the Police personnel and those two persons who were standing near Jeep were caught alongwith Jeep. That, Police Constable – Pravinbhai Nathabhai has tried to chase the Jeep, the accused persons dashed Jeep with him and thereby caused injuries on hand and leg. That, those three persons who were standing near Shantinagar had pelted stones towards complainant and the Head Constable Natwarsinh, Police Constable – Badridan and Kantibhai with intention to release other accused persons and thereby caused damage of glass of Jeep as well as injuries to driver Yusufkhan. That, though there was notification issued by learned Magistrate under Bombay Police Act, the accused persons were found in possession of deadly weapons like Dharia and Dhoka and thereby committed offence under Bombay Police Act. Thus, all the accused persons in abetment of each other have committed offence of robbery as well as under the Bombay Police Act, and therefore, the complainant has filed aforesaid complaint before Vadali Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 399, 120(B), 279, 336, 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

2.1 Upon such offence being registered, investigation started and the investigating Officer recorded statements of different witnesses and after completion of the investigation, Charge-sheet was filed against the accused for the offences in question. Since the offence is absolutely triable by the Sessions Court, therefore the same was committed to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.4, Himmatnagar camp at Idar. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. Vide impugned judgment and order dated 20.12.2008, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the State has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard, learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the appellant – State and learned advocate Mr. J.V. Japee for the respondents – accused.

3.1 The learned APP Ms. Maithili Mehta for the State contended that the learned trial Judge failed to appreciate evidence of PW 5- Kumudbhai Karshanbhai Patel, who has seen the accused persons with Dharia and Dhoka and also identified the accused persons before the trial Court and evidence of this witness also supported by the evidence of PW 6, Kumudbhai Savjibhai Patel at Exh. 25, who has also identified the accused no. 3 Babu, accused no. 4 Mitha, accused no. 5 Dhana Deva. It is submitted that these witnesses have supported the ca