In acquittals, an appellate court must uphold the presumption of innocence and should only interfere if the trial court's decision is perverse or flawed, as established in multiple precedents.

JUDGMENT :

(D. M. VYAS, J.)

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 30/03/2013 in Sessions Case No.7 of 2012 on the file of the learned 6^th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat whereby the sole accused in the case was acquitted of the charges under Sections 395 and 397 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE .

2. Facts of the prosecution case germane to dispose of this appeal may briefly be stated as follows:

2.1. As per the version of the complainant, Snanabhai Patel, ASI, Buckle No.1759, Amroli Police Station, Surat City, he is serving as ASI in Amroli Police Station from 05.11.2008. On 26/03/2009 at 20:00 hours to 27/03/2009 at 8:00 hours, he was on patrolling with other police persons. During that time, at about 4:10 a.m., they came to Amroli Police Chowky for natures call and at that time one Kanubahi Derivala made a call on phone of Amroli Police Chowky and reported that one tempo-407 bearing registration no.GJ-16-T-6308 wherein some persons with weapons entered into the shop of Dwarkesh Jewelers by breaking shutter of the shop situated on the ground floor of Shreenath Apartment near Jasmin Park, Kosad road. That after receiving message, immediately they rushed to the above place with police staff and saw the tempo was parked in front of the shop and they have stopped the jeep and alighted from the jeep and saw five persons coming with boxes of ornaments in their hands from Dwarkesh Jewelers towards the tempo. They tried to prevent them but those persons have pelted stones on them and thereby the stones hit at right writs of his hand and they ran away towards Mansarovar Circle. That they chased them and informed about the incident on wireless set in police control room. That they followed the tempo and other police staff also came and ultimately the tempo was cordoned near traffic police chowky of Surat Railway Station. That three persons were arrested and two persons fled away. That the arrested persons gave their names as well as names of the persons who fled away. That they brought arrested persons at Amroli Police Station and called the owner of the Dwarkesh Jewelers who had informed about the incident of loot of the ornaments. That, therefore, a complaint is given before Amroli Police Station on 27/03/2009 which is registered as I-C.R. No.36 of 2009.

2.2. On the basis of the complaint, through investigation was carried out by the Investigating Officer. Necessary panchnama was prepared and statements of witnesses were recorded.

3. After completion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat which came to be registered as Criminal Case No.1289 of 2011. However, as the case being exclusively sessions triable, the same was committed before the learned 6^th (Adhoc) Additional Sessions Judge, Surat as per Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure where the case was registered as Sessions Case No.7 of 2012.

4. The trial court framed charges against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE . The accused denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.

5. During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined PW-1 to PW-12 witnesses and got marked 16 exhibits to prove its case against the accused.

6. At the end of the trial, after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court acquitted the accused of the said charges as it did not find him guilty for the aforesaid offences. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the State has preferred the present appeal.

7. Assailing the impugned judgment and order of t