IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, the burden of proof resting on the prosecution, and the requirement for material evidence of sterling quality to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

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 13.08.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.03/1997, whereby the learned Sessions Court acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

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

2.1 In the present case, the Complainant Sureshbhai Rathod along with his family members went from his residence in Gandhinagar on the night of 06.11.1994 in his car to have dinner in a hotel. While, he was returning from the dinner, at 11.00 P.M. at the railway crossing of Radheja village, his car was stopped by some unknown persons and at that time, five people came with deadly weapons namely sticks, knife etc.. One of them hit the complainant with a stick and breaking the wind shield of the car and other people also used sticks and started hitting the complainant on the elbow with the right hand and on the face, whereas his son viz. Kirtan, his daughter and his wife were also assaulted by the accused persons and one accused was having knife and he threatened and looted the ornaments of wife of the complainant, wrist watch and total goods worth Rs.36,000/-. After opening of the railway crossing, he went to hospital and after taking the primary treatment, he made a phone call to the PSI, Pethapur. Thereafter, the PSI visited the place of incident and filed the complaint against the unknown persons, which is produced at Exh.36. The panchnama of scene of offence and Ambassador Car was drawn, which are produced at Exhs.19 and 32. During the investigation, the accused Nos.1 and 2 both were arrested by way of transfer warrant from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Prantij and then produced before the Executive Magistrate for the Test Identification Parade and panchnama was drawn.

2.2 Accordingly, FIR being C.R.No.155/1994 was lodged before Pethapur Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar, investigation was carried out and ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate. 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.03/1997. 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 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.08.1998 in Sessions Case No.03/1997, 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 learned advocates for the respective parties.

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 along with his family members have supported the case of the prosecution. Investigating officer has also supported the case of