Point of Law: Conviction can be based solely on the testimony of official witnesses if the evidence of such official witnesses inspires confidence.

JUDGMENT :

1. Present appeals have been filed by the appellant – original complainant under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the judgments and orders dated 25.03.2004, passed in Criminal Case Nos. 844 and 845 of 1993 by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalawad recording the acquittal.

2. The facts, in brief, are that complainant – Mahendrasinh Bhagwatsinh Jadeja filed two complaints before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kalawad, District: Jamnagar which were initially registered as M. Case Nos. 15 of 1993 and 16 of 1993 against the respondent/s for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506(1), 147, and 392 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 respectively, stating therein that on 10.09.1993, when driver of the complainant namely Juvansinh Bhimsinh Sodha was coming from Junagadh to Jamnagar driving the Truck bearing GJ- 10-T-7031 belonging to the complainant, respondent No. 2 herein stopped the truck and took away the papers from the driver and detained the truck saying that the complainant is not paying heed to his demand. He also demanded Rs.400/- from the driver to which, the driver refused to give. On a call being made by the driver, the complainant firstly went to Jamnagar and then to Kalawad Police Station and thereafter, since the respondent No. 2 was on duty at Kalawad Bus-stand, they went there and talked with him. The respondent No. 2 demanded illegal gratification to which, since the complainant denied, he got furious and abused the complainant and thereafter, give a fist blow on the face, below the left eye of the complainant. The respondent No. 2 also took away gold chain worth Rs.8,000/- worn by the complainant, due to which, the complainant went away to Kalawad Police Station to lodge the complaint, where, while he was talking to PSO Shri Babubhai, the respondent No. 2 reached there and inflicted fist blows on the stomach of the complainant and also kicked him, due to which, the other police personnel relieved him and locked him up in the lock-up. Thereafter, PSI Patel and other police personnel ousted the complainant from the lock-up and beaten him up. On the nephew as well as the brother of the complainant reaching to the police station and inquiring about the complainant and asking not to beat the complainant, the aforesaid personnel also beaten up them and locked them up in the lock-up and registered a false case under Prohibition Act against them. Hence, the complainant lodged aforesaid two M.Cases, one for beating up and looting of gold chain and second for harassment and mistreating the complainant by respondents – accused, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. On such complaints being filed, the learned Magistrate, after making inquiry under Section 202 of the Code, ordered to register the criminal case against the respondent/s and accordingly, Criminal Case Nos. 844 and 845 of 1993, respectively came to be registered against the respondents.

2.1 Upon such cases being registered, summons were issued against the respondents - accused pursuant to which, they appeared before the Court. The learned trial Judge recorded the plea of the accused. Since the accused did not plead guilty, trial was proceeded against the accused. In support of the case, the complainant examined several witnesses and also produced some documentary evidence. Vide impugned judgments and orders dated 25.03.2004, the learned trial Judge acquitted the accused persons. Being aggrieved by the same, the original complainant has preferred the present appeals.

3. Heard, learned advocate Mr. J. M. Buddhbhatti for the appellant – original complainant, learned advocate Mr. B. M. Mangukiya for the for the respondent/s – original accused and learned APP Ms. Monali Bhatt for the respondent – State.

3.1 The learned advocate for the appellant has mainly contended that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding that the complainant has failed to prove it case beyond reasonable