In acquittal appeals, the appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is clear evidence of illegality or perversity.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 452, 393, 398, 120

(B), 34 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1)(a)(b) - Appeal against acquittal - The Trial Court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution's witnesses had inconsistencies, and the Test Identification Parade was deemed unreliable. (Paras 1, 10, 11)

(B) Acquittal Appeals - The appellate court has the power to review evidence but must respect the presumption of innocence and the trial court's findings unless there is manifest illegality or perversity. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The complainant alleged that four individuals, including one known to her, attempted to commit robbery and assault in her home. The accused were acquitted due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 3.1, 10)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused and the reliability of witness testimonies. (Paras 4, 10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the prosecution did not meet the burden of proof required for conviction and that the evidence presented was insufficient to disturb the acquittal. (Paras 11)

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. PINTO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant – State under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) against the judgment and the order dated 09.12.2005 in Sessions Case No.15 of 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, 4^th Fast Track Court, Nadiad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 452, 393, 398, 120(B) and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act, 1959. The respondents are hereinafter referred to as ‘the accused’ as they stood in the rank and file in the original case, for the sake of convenience, clarity and brevity.

2. During pendecy of the present appeal, the respondent No.2 – original accused No.2 Rajubhai Babubhai Parmar has expired on 28.12.2024. Copy of the death certificate is produced and the same is taken is taken on record, and hence, the present appeal qua respondent No.2 herein – original accused No.2 stands disposed of as abated.

3. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

3.1. The complainant Jashodaben, wife of Ashokbhai Nathabhai Patel, has filed the complaint on 24.12.2001 mainly stating that while she was at home at around 11:30 am, Jayrambhai Savabhai Rabari, nephew of her earlier neighbour in Ashoknagar, came along with other three persons to her house and asked for drinking water as they had come to the Civil Hospital. That she asked them to sit and went to bring water and after she gave them water, Jayrambhai Savabhai Rabari wanted to use the washroom and he immediately returned from the washroom and at that time, one of the three persons, had shut the door. That she opened the door and one of the three persons told her to keep the door shut and closed the door once again and while she was returning from the kitchen, one of the persons was talking to Jayrambhai Savabhai Rabari about the kidney and Jayrambhai Savabhai Rabari asked her how much would he get for a kidney and she told Jayrambhai Savabhai Rabari to ask her husband. That at that time, one of the persons caught her throat and her son intervened and the other persons caught her son and the third person showed her a revolver and an handkerchief from which there was smell of chloroform and she pushed them and opened the door of her house and started shouting. That her neighbours came and all four of them ran down the stairs and out of the four, Jayrambhai Savabhai Rabari was caught by the neighbours Buprendrabhai Vyas, Indravadan Desai etc. That in the struggle, she sustained sprain on the wrist of her left hand and the complainant filed the complaint with Nadiad Town Police Station which was registered at I-C.R.No. 489 of 2001 under Sections 452, 393, 398, 120(B) and 34 of the IPC and 25(1)(a)(b) of the Arms Act.

3.2. After registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out by the concerned Investigating Officer and after having sufficient material against the accused, the chargesheet came to be filed before the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. was undertaken and the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.15 of 2005.

3.3. The accused was duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the Trial Court and it was verified whether the copies of all the police papers were provided to the accused as per the provisions of Section 207 of the Code and a charge was framed by the Trial Court at Exh.8 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 9 and 10, wherein, the accused denied all the contents of the charge and the entire evidence of the prosecution was taken on record. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses and has produced 24 documentary evidences in support of the