IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.696 OF 2024 Chandrakant Tukaram Kunjir Age 57 years, Occ : Service, R/at Flat No.K-100, Bharati Vihar, Katraj, Pune ...Appellant V/s.

1) The State of Maharashtra At the instance of Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station, Pune

2) Sheetal Dattaraya Humbe Age 35 years, Occ : Service, R/at Flat No.407, Bhekari Nagar, Fursungi, Hadapsar, Pune …Respondents Mr. Sujay Gangal for the Appellant.

Ms. S. G. Talhar APP for the Respondent-State.

CORAM : SHYAM C. CHANDAK, J.

DATE : 09^th MAY, 2025 JUDGMENT :-

. Present Appeal filed under Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been directed against the Judgment and Order dated 31/10/2023, in Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2019, passed by the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune which upheld the Judgment and Order dated 07/05/2019, in Regular Criminal Case No.738 of 2012, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4 at Pune thereby acquitting Respondent No.2/Original accused for the charge of offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code has been upheld.

2) Heard Mr. Gangal, the learned Advocate for the Appellant and learned A.P.P. for Respondent No.1-State.

3) Facts giving rise to this Appeal are that initially, the Appellant-first informant filed a Report with Bharati Vidyapeeth Police Station alleging theft of his Car bearing registration No.MH-12- ET-7830 in the night intervening 26/09/2011 and 27/09/2011. However, the police did not take any action on the said Report. The Appellant, therefore, filed another Report with the Police Commissioner, Pune City, alleging theft of the said car, a laptop, Mobile handset, LCD projector, one Gold Chain of 5 Tolas, Cell phone, cash of Rs.21,000/- and 150 answer papers. On the basis of this subsequent Report, Crime No.161 of 2011 was registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of I.P.C. against Respondent No.2. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of witnesses and seized the alleged stolen article, except the gold chain and the cell phone. The investigation culminated into filing of charge-sheet against Respondent No.2.

4) On appearance of Respondent No.2, the charge was framed against her at Exh.16 to which she denied and claimed to be tried.

5) In order to bring home the guilt of Respondent No.2, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the trial Court recorded the statement of Respondent No.2, under section 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence of Respondent No.2 was of denial and false implication.

6) On analysing the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that the charge was not established, hence, acquitted the Respondent No.2 by the Judgment and Order dated 07/05/2019. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant filed the Criminal Appeal No.291 of 2019, impugning the said Judgment and Order of the trial Court. On re-appreciating the evidence, the Appellate Court upheld the acquittal. Hence, Appeal.

7) Mr. Gangal, the learned Advocate for the Appellant emphatically submitted that there is ample evidence on record which established that Respondent No.2 committed the theft of the articles belonging to the Appellant. The recovery of certain stolen articles corroborated the evidence as to the theft. However, the trial Court did not appreciate the prosecution evidence in correct perspective and acquitted the Respondent No.2 for baseless reasons. Yet, the Appellate Court upheld the said Judgment and Order. As such, the impugned Judgment and Order is liable to be set-aside.

8) Ms. Tendulkar, the learned APP submitted that considering the material on record, appropriate order may be passed. 9) The testimony of the Appellant-Chandrakant Kunjir (PW1) is that 27/09/2011, at about 5.00 a.m., he found that his car was missing from the society where he was residing. On inquiry with his wife and son, they expressed ignoran