The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the absence of corroborative evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies can impact the outcome of the case.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP N. BHATT, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 09.06.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajkot in Sessions Case No.86 of 1997 for the offences under Sections 452, 342, 394, 397 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the B.P. Act., the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents - accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is as under :

2.1 On 01.06.1995, all three accused made reiki of the shop of complainant – Ashokbhai Ganatra. At about 3:00 p.m., accused No.3 – Sultan made first reiki of the shop, then at about 6:00 p.m., other two accused – accused No.1 – Barkat and accused No.2 – Azim made reiki of the shop. Accused Nos.1 and 2 also made inquiry about the goods – groundnut. Thereafter, at about 7:00 p.m., accused Nos.1 and 2 again came to the shop of the complainant. They locked the door from inside. They both have knife. They cut the telephone wire and the complainant was strangulated from that wire. They have threatened the complainant. They snatched away one portfolio lying near the complainant, in which there were total Rs.35,600/-. Thereafter, they ran away from the place of occurrence by locking the door from outside. The complainant shouted from inside through window and two labourers were immediately rushed inside by opining the door. They ran behind the accused, however, since the accused were on bicycle, they ran away from there.

2.2 Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before Rajkot City ‘B’ Division Police Station, Rajkot, which was registered as C.R. I No.192 of 1995 for the offences under Sections 452, 342, 394, 397 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 135 of the B.P. Act.

3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the respondents - accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajkot. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Rajkot as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed Charge against the respondents - accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondents - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined 15 witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, which is described in Para : 16 of the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. This Court has admitted the appeal vide order dated 22.12.1998. The notices were served to the respondents, but they have chosen not to appear before this Court.

8. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shah appearing for the applicant State and have minutely examined the documentary evidence provided to us by learned APP during the course of hearing.

9.1 The entire case of the prosecutio