Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Guj) 1013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
S.V. PINTO, J.
State of Gujarat - Appellant
Versus
Vinesh @ Vinu Tejabhai Desai and Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2064 of 2009
Decided On : 20-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
MR BHARGAV PANDYA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
ADVOCATE NOTICE NOT RECD BACK for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 4
BAILABLE WARRANT SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
BAILABLE WARRANT UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3,4
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 2
NOTICE UNSERVED for the Opponent(s)/Respondent(s) No. 1,3

The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only overturn an acquittal if the trial court's decision is perverse or unreasonable.

Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(1)(3) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 399 and 402 - Bombay Police Act - Section 135(1) - Appeal against acquittal - The Trial Court acquitted the accused of charges of preparation for dacoity, citing lack of evidence and reliability of witnesses. (Paras 1, 10)

(B) Acquittal - The appellate court must respect the presumption of innocence and only interfere if the trial court's decision is perverse or unreasonable. (Paras 6, 7)

Facts of the case:
The accused were apprehended with motorcycles and alleged weapons while preparing for a dacoity. The prosecution's evidence was primarily from police witnesses, with no independent corroboration. (Paras 2.1, 9)

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court found insufficient evidence to support the charges, leading to acquittal. The appellate court agreed with this assessment. (Paras 10)

Issues: The main issue was whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to uphold the conviction. (Paras 3)

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court reiterated that it cannot interfere with acquittal unless there is a clear miscarriage of justice or the trial court's findings are unreasonable. (Paras 6, 7)

Result: Appeal dismissed; acquittal confirmed.

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 08.05.2009 in Sessions Case No.2 41 of 2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.17, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trial Court’), whereby, the learned Trial Court has acquitted the respondents – accused from the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’) and Section 135(1) of the Bombay Police Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the B.P. Act’). 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. The relevant facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under:

2.1. The complainant Bhikhaji Nathuji, ASI, Buckle No.8434, Ellis bridge Police Station, Ahmedabad City received secret information that the accused had made preparation for dacoity on a petrol pump and had sharp weapons and chili powder in their possession and hence, on 04.02.2007 at 15:45 hours a watch was arranged at Kalgi Cross Roads, near World Business House and the accused came on motorcycle No.GJ-01-FK-2225 and one another motorcycle without a number plate. The motorcycles were halted and the accused were caught red handed. The complainant filed the complaint, which was registered at I- C.R.No.75 of 2007 with Ellis Bridge under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and sections 135 of the B.P.Act.

2.2. 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 therefore, after completion of process under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Sessions Court and the same was registered as Sessions Case No.241 of 2007.

2.3. The accused were duly served with the summons and the accused appeared before the learned 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 learned Trial Court at Exh.3 and the statements of the accused were recorded at Exhs. 4 to 7 respectively, 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 4 witnesses and has produced 3 documentary evidences in support of the case.

2.4. After the closing pursis was submitted by the learned APP at Exh.22, the further statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code was recorded. After hearing the arguments of the learned APP and learned advocate for the accused and after perusing the documents on record, the learned Trial Court, by the impugned judgment and order, has acquitted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the IPC and Section 135(1) of the B.P. Act.

3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Trial Court, the appellant – State has filed the present appeal mainly stating that the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law, evidence on record and principles of justice and is based on inferences not warranted by facts of the present case and also on presumption, not warranted by law. The learned Trial Court has erred in seeking direct and indirect evidence produced in this case connecting the respondents with crime and inspite of the fact, the learned Trial Court, without appreciating the evidence produced by the prosecution, arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court has not properly