Point of Law: If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." Unless there are substantial and compelling reasons, the order of acquittal is not required to be reversed in appeal. It has been so stated in State of Rajasthan v. Shera Ram (AIR 2012 SC 1).

JUDGMENT :

Pritinker Diwaker, J.

1. Heard on admission.

2. Challenge in the present Government Appeal is to the common judgment and order dated 17.08.2019, passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Court No. 1, Bulandshahar in Sessions Trial No. 211 of 2011 (State v. Rustam & others), Sessions Trial No. 289 of 2011 (State v. Rustam), Sessions Trial No. 290 of 2011 (State v. Firoz), Sessions Trial No. 291 of 2011 (State v. Hamid) and Sessions Trial No. 972 of 2012 (State v. Rustam & others), acquitting all the respondents of the offences under Sections 395, 397 & 412 of IPC, acquitting respondents Rustam, Firoz, Hamid under Section 25 of the Arms Act and acquitting the respondents Rustam, Sajid alias Mannu, Hamid, Gajay Singh of the offences under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

3. Brief facts of the case are that in the night intervening 09/10.09.2010, certain persons entered the premises of an Engineering College where construction work was going on, and after kidnapping some labourers, have taken about 300 shuttering plates, one generator set, three vibrators and about 50 tie-iron rods and one stabilizer in a truck. On the next morning i.e. on 10.09.2010, information of the said offence has been communicated by Suresh (PW-3) to the Secretary of the Society, namely, Shiv Singh (PW-1). At their instance, FIR (Ex. Ka-15) was registered against some unknown persons under Section 392 of IPC. Further case of the prosecution is that during checking of the vehicles, one Eicher Canter car was apprehended carrying looted articles and seven accused persons were found in the said vehicle. They were interrogated by the police and they confessed their offence. Based on their statement, seizure was effected and accordingly charge sheet was filed.

4. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against all the accused persons under Sections 395, 397, 412 of IPC, whereas separate charge under Section 25 of the Arms Act was framed against Rustam, Firoz and Hamid. Accused Rustum, Sajid, Abid and Gangu alias Gajay Singh were also separately tried under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of IPC.

5. So as to hold the accused persons guilty, prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. Statement of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which, they pleaded their innocence and false implication.

6. By the impugned judgment, trial Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused of all the charges. Hence the present appeal by the State, assailing the acquittal.

7. Learned counsel for the State submits that the Trial Judge has erred in law in acquitting the respondent.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record.

9. In the evidence, it has come that the incident occurred in the darkness and none of the accused could be identified by any of the witness. No Test Identification Parade of any accused was conducted by the prosecution nor identification parade in respect of so called looted articles was conducted by the prosecution. Even the prosecution has utterly failed to prove that the vehicle in question i.e. Eicher Canter was used in the commission of offence. It has also failed to prove that any forged number plate was prepared and used in the commission of offence. In respect of seized weapon, no independent person has supported the prosecution case nor seized weapon was sent for ballistic report.

10. Considering all these aspects of the case, trial court has acquitted the respondents of all the charges granting them benefit of doubt. The view taken by the trial court is one of the possible view and it cannot be said to be perverse.

11. While considering the scope of interference in an appeal or revision against acquittal, it has been held by the Supreme Court that if two views of the evidence are reasonably possible, one supporting the acquittal and other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial