Appellate courts review evidence in acquittal cases but uphold trial court findings unless there is clear evidence of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The present appeal filed by the State under Section 378(1)(3) of the CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) challenges the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.09.2004 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, 2nd Fast Track Court, Dhrangadhra in Sessions Case No.31 of 1999.

2. The facts of the case, as has been referred, briefly can be stated that on 14.04.1999, a complaint was registered before Haldvad Police Station for the offence under Sections 395 , 397, 452 and 114 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) as well as Section 135 of BOMBAY POLICE ACT (for short, ‘B.P. Act’) vide C.R. No.51/99, stating the fact that some accused persons have assaulted the staff members of petrol pump with deadly weapons and thereby, committed robbery of cash of Rs.12,806/- of patrol pump, situated on Highway at about 11.00 p.m.

3. Learned APP Mr. Rohan Raval, has referred to the charge framed by the Trial Court against ten of the accused, stating that on the referred time and place, the accused had joined together and committed dacoity and robbery with sticks as deadly weapons, had caused grievous hurt to three of the persons. APP Mr. Raval further stated that there was breach of notification under Section 135 of the B.P. Act.

3.1 Learned APP Mr. Raval has stressed upon the evidence of witnesses stating that the complainant had identified the accused. The panch also has supported the place of incident. Mr. Raval stated that witness (PW3) was present at the petrol pump and has stated that the complainant has identified the accused. The Chowkidar–Maganbhai (PW4) has supported the prosecution case, stating about the robbery, and further stated about the evidence of owner of the petrol pump (PW5). Mr. Raval stated that though, the owner was not present there, but after hearing about the incident, had come with loaded pistol and had seen the last man running away from the place. Mr. Raval stated that, arrest panchnama of Shobatsinh Khimabhai Bariya (Exh.24) verifies the fact of incident, which had taken place.

3.2 Learned APP further stated that P.W.8 – Rameshbhai Raval being police constable had identified the accused. He had given the deposition with specific identification of the accused being found in the morning at about 10.00, as ‘Chaddi-Banyandhari’ and ‘Lungiwala’ near Kalpana Hotel and when they were asked to stop, they ran away, and there was firing in the air, and during that period, Sobatsinh Khimabhai Bariya was arrested.

3.3 Learned APP Mr. Raval further stated that Satish Chhotubhai Patel (PW9), the Executive Magistrate, has given the deposition of the procedure undertaken by him for identification and with supporting evidence of the Executive Magistrate, the deposition proved that the accused were identified.

3.4 Learned APP has placed reliance on the injured victim – Bharatbhai, who could identify the person, who had given him blow. Mr. Raval thus, stated that the fracture injury sustained by Bharatbhai could be proved by medical evidence. Mr. Raval further placed reliance on the deposition of PW13 – Takhatsinh Thakor, who has given the evidence regarding the panchnama and the fact of recording of statements of the witnesses.

3.5 Learned APP Mr. Raval further submitted that PW14 – Doctor Rampyare Prasad Verma had medically examined the injured and the evidence of the doctor corroborates the fact that three of the persons had sustained injury during the incident.

4. Perusal of judgment of the learned Trial Court Judge, shows that the learned Judge has appreciated the incident of 14.04.1999 on 11.00 at night on Haldvad Highway Road at Gokulesh Petrol Pump. The employees wer