State of Gujarat vs Raju Alias Pahelvan Alias Ibrahim Azmuddin Luhar

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Guj) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.H. VORA, SANDEEP N. BHATT, JJ.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Raju Alias Pahelvan Alias Ibrahim Azmuddin Luhar & Others - Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 477 of 1999
Decided On : 31-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. Chetna M. Shah, APP.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 451, 452, 395 and 506(2) – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 378(1)(3) – B.P. Act – Section 135 – Arms Act – Section 25(1) – Punishment for dacoity – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Appeal in case of acquittal – Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and order of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.38 of 1998 for offences under Sections 451, 452, 395 and 506(2) of Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1) of Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of B.P. Act., appellant – Held, Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of case and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering scope of appeal under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, no case is made out to interfere with impugned judgment and order of acquittal – As observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajesh Singh & Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported and in case while dealing with judgment of acquittal, unless reasoning by learned trial Court is found to be perverse, acquittal cannot be upset – It is further observed that High Court's interference in such appeal in somewhat circumscribed and if view taken by learned trial Court is possible on evidence, High Court should stay its hands and not interfere in matter in belief that if it had been trial Court, it might have taken a different view – Criminal Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep N. Bhatt, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.02.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.38 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 451, 452, 395 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the B.P. Act., the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378(1)(3) 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 10.07.1997 at about 5:00 to 5:30 p.m., when the complainant – Prakashbhai Maheshbhai Panjabi, his sister Ashaben, His grandfather Narayandas and mermaid Jyotiben were present in their home, the accused Nos.1 and 2 and other three persons came there. One of the accused had inquired about the complainant and pushed the complainant. Whereas one of the accused had snatched the gold chain and wrist-watch from Ashaben. Out of five accused, one had entered into the house from the kitchen situated at back side and thereafter he locked the house from the back side. They threatened his grandfather. They caught the complainant and carried him one the first floor and thereby looted Rs.1,70,000/- from the locker. One of the accused had taken her sister and mermaid at the first floor and locked them in one bathroom. The accused had locked the complainant and his grandfather and run away from the place of offence by committing such offence.

2.2 Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before Gorva Police Station, Vadodara, which was registered as C.R. I No.174 of 1997 for the offences under Sections 451, 452, 395 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with 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 Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed Charge at Exh.5 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 many witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, which is described in 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 28.09.1999. 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