The prosecution's failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt renders the accused entitled to acquittal and benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. The respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 392, 397 r/w. Section 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act in Sessions Case No. 98 of 2009 on the file of learned Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar. At the culmination of the trial, they were acquitted of all the aforesaid charges by the impugned judgment dated 10.10.2012. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the instant appeal assailing the legality and validity of the said judgment of acquittal.

2. Brief overview of the facts of the prosecution case may be stated as follows:

2.1 The complainant is an agriculturist by profession. There was a rivalry between the complainant and the accused who are accused Nos. 1 to 3 (A1 to A3) in the said case. On the night of 05.01.2009, the complainant, who is examined as PW-1, was sleeping in his field on a cot. While he was sleeping, at about 3:00 a.m., it is stated, that A1 to A3 came to the field of the complainant. A1 was holding a Dhariya (Scythe), A2 was holding a Hockey stick and A3 was holding a wooden stick and A2 attacked the complainant with a Hockey stick and he has extorted a mobile phone from the pocket of the complainant and A3 attacked the complainant with a wooden stick. Though A1 was holding a Dhariya, he did not attack him. It is stated that he extorted Rs.3,600/- cash which is in the pocket of the inner garment of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant did not wake up even after he was attacked by A2 and A3 and when the mobile phone and the cash were extorted from him, out of fear that he might be attacked severely by the accused, but later on, when he woke up, he has seen the accused in the moonlight. It is further stated that there was a blanket covered on him and the accused has put the grass available at the field on the said blanket and set fire to the said blanket and the complainant has also sustained burn injuries. Thereafter, the accused left the scene of offence and went away along with the mobile phone and cash of Rs.3,600/-.

2.2 Thereafter, the complainant got up from the cot and he went to the house of one Rameshbhai in the village and from the mobile phone of the said Rameshbhai, he called his son who is examined as PW-4 and after his son came, they both went to the scene of offence again. Thereafter, it is stated that the complainant was taken to the hospital. He was examined by the doctor at about 12:50 p.m. on that day. The doctor who examined him, found three injuries i.e. i) tenderness on both flanks, ii) scratch abrasions on both flanks and iii) blackening on feet and legs anterior aspect due to septical burns.

2.3 On the intimation given by the doctor, the police visited the hospital at about 5:45 p.m. in the evening on that day and recorded the statement of the complainant wherein, he has narrated the above facts. The said statement was registered as an FIR against A1 to A3 at about 10:40 p.m. on that day for the offences punishable under Sections 392, 447 and 114 of the IPC and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. The case was investigated.

2.4 During the course of investigation, A1 and A2 were arrested on 07.01.2009 and A3 was arrested on 09.01.2009. It is stated that on the disclosure statement given by A3 in the presence of the mediators examined as PW-2 and another, that he has produced the Dhariya, the Hockey stick and the wooden stick, said to have been used by the accused in commission of the offence. Cash of Rs.3,600/- was also recovered from him but the mobile phone was not recovered.

2.5 The scene of offence was also observed in the presence of the mediators examined as PW-5 and PW-6. After completion of the investigation, police laid Charge-sheet agains