IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must prove the case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt, and the appellate court's scope of interference in acquittal appeals is limited.

JUDGMENT :

HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, J

1. This appeal is directed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “the Code” for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.14/1999, whereby the learned Sessions Court acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 394, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:

2.1 The complainant Gulanhusain Sheikh was serving as a driver and on 25.02.1998 at about 09:30 hours in the night, when he was returning from Kadi to Ahmedabad with his tempo bearing registration No.GJ-01-V-6519, at that time, near FCI godown, one Maruti car overtake and stopped the tempo of the complainant, from which, the accused - respondents along with one absconding accused came down from the car and dragged the complainant from the tempo. It further reveals that, the accused beaten the complainant by showing knife and revolver and asked to give money whatever he had.

Therefore, the complainant had given Rs.1,800/- and then, the accused fled away with the tempo of the complainant. Thereby, the accused had committed an offence of robbery of money and vehicle of the complainant. In this regard, complaint came to be registered with Adalaj Police Station.

2.2 Accordingly, FIR being C.R.No.45/1998 was lodged before Adalaj Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar, investigation was carried out and ultimately, chargesheet came to be filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate against the accused persons. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.14/1999. Since, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the said offences;

2.3 At the trial, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined several witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence.

2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, and upon hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court acquitted present respondents – accused from the offence under Sections 394, 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.07.1999 in Sessions Case No.14/1999, as mentioned above;

2.5 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – State preferred present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

3. Heard Mr. Manan Mehta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State, Mr. J.V.Japee, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Mr. N.R.Kodekar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 4.

4. Learned APP for the appellant – State has contended that, the learned trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondents and not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record though the prosecution has proved case against the accused and the complainant has supported the case of the prosecution. He further contended that the complainant has identified the respondents and vehicle was also recovered. Investigating officer has also supported the case of the prosecution and test identification parade was also conducted before the Executive Magistrate, who is an independent witness. The said witness in his deposition at Exh:25 has clearly deposed that, the test identification parade conducted in the presence of complainant and complainant had identified accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. Mr. Mehta has submitted that the learned trial Court has committed an error in holding that belatedly test identification parade was conducted and merely on the basis of delay in conducting test identification pa