The prosecution failed to prove the charges of robbery and assault, leading to the acquittal of the accused due to lack of reliable evidence.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 22.06.2011 passed in Sessions Case No. 182 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dahod, whereby, the respondents herein were acquitted of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 395 , 397, 504, 506 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( IPC ).

2. Facts of the prosecution case in a nutshell may be stated as follow:

2.1 The offence took place on 16.04.2007 as per the prosecution version. Prior to the said date of offence, an accident took place when PW-2 was driving a vehicle and in the said accident, father of accused No. 2 (A2) and another person were injured. So, A2, bore grudge against PW-2 as his father sustained injuries in the accident that occurred due to the negligent driving of PW-2.

2.2 So, it is stated, that on 16.04.2007 at about 9:00 a.m. in the morning when PW-2 and PW-6, who is his uncle, were coming in a Jeep, while PW-2 was driving the Jeep and PW-6 was sitting on the backside of the Jeep and when they reached near the bus-stop of the village, that accused Nos. 1 to 6 (A1 to A6) together waylaid the Jeep and A2 caught hold of the collar of PW-2, who was driving the Jeep and pulled him out of the Jeep and thereafter, A1 to A4 and A6, who are holding sticks and A5, who is holding an iron pipe, attacked PW-2 with the said weapons and beat him and caused injuries to him and when PW-6 tried to intervene, that they also tried to attack him and out of fear, he ran away from the said place. He went to the house of PW-2 and informed about the same to his son, who is PW-7 and both of them came to the scene of offence and they found PW-2 in unconscious state lying on the road and after they came, the accused left the scene of offence and went away. It is stated that some cash and a gold chain, which are kept in the Jeep in a bag, belonging to PW-2, was also taken away by force by the accused.

2.3 Thereafter, PW-6 and PW-7 took PW-2 to the hospital. On the intimation given by the hospital staff, police visited the hospital. PW-6 has lodged a report with the police and it was registered as a case against the accused for the aforesaid offences. The case was investigated. Thereafter, the statement of the injured PW-2 was recorded by the police. The injured, who was in the hospital was discharged. The accused were arrested on 28.05.2007 during the course of the investigation. It is stated that on the disclosure statement given by them that they would show the place where the sticks and iron pipe were hidden if the police accompany them, that they led the police and the mediator who is examined as PW-5 to the place where the weapons were hidden and at the instance of the accused, it is stated, that the police have recovered and seized the sticks and iron pipe in the presence of the mediator. The scene of offence was also observed in the presence of mediators who are examined as PW-3 and PW-4. After completion of investigation, police laid the Charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

2.4 After the accused made their appearance in the trial Court, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 395 , 397, 504, 506 and 427 of IPC were framed against them. They denied the said charges and claimed to be tried.

2.5 During the course of the trial, the prosecution got examined PW-1 to PW-10 witnesses and got marked five exhibits to substantiate its case against the accused.

2.6 At the culmination of the trial, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the trial Court found the accused not guilty for any of the charges levelled against them and acquitted them of the said charges by the impugned judgment.

2.7 Therefore, being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of acquittal, the State has preferred the instant appeal questi