Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(GUJ) 13337
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
NIRZAR S. DESAI, HASMUKH D. SUTHAR, JJ
STATE OF GUJARAT – Appellant
Versus
MITHU UMAR SINDHI – Respondent
R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 917 of 1998
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the presumption of innocence remains until proven otherwise.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 395 and 397 - Bombay Police Act - Section 135 - Appeal against acquittal - The trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence connecting them to the crime, despite the prosecution's claims of robbery and assault. The court emphasized the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof resting on the prosecution. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 12)
(B) Criminal Jurisprudence - Presumption of innocence - The appellate court must respect the trial court's findings unless there is a palpable error. The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 8.1, 9.2, 12)
Facts of the case:
The complainant and his family were assaulted and robbed by unknown persons while returning home. The trial court acquitted the accused due to insufficient evidence, including hostile witnesses and unreliable identification procedures.
Findings of Court:
The trial court's judgment was upheld, confirming the acquittal as the prosecution did not establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues were whether the prosecution proved the involvement of the accused in the robbery and the adequacy of evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the prosecution bears the burden of proof and that the presumption of innocence remains until proven guilty. The trial court's findings were deemed just and legal.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
erred to as “the Code” for short) against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.08.1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural), Gandhinagar, in Sessions Case No.03/1997, whereby the learned Sessions Court acquitted the respondents for the offence punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.
2. The following noteworthy facts emerge from the record of the appeal:
2.1 In the present case, the Complainant Sureshbhai Rathod along with his family members went from his residence in Gandhinagar on the night of 06.11.1994 in his car to have dinner in a hotel. While, he was returning from the dinner, at 11.00 P.M. at the railway crossing of Radheja village, his car was stopped by some unknown persons and at that time, five people came with deadly weapons namely sticks, knife etc.. One of them hit the complainant with a stick and breaking the wind shield of the car and other people also used sticks and started hitting the complainant on the elbow with the right hand and on the face, whereas his son viz. Kirtan, his daughter and his wife were also assaulted by the accused persons and one accused was having knife and he threatened and looted the ornaments of wife of the complainant, wrist watch and total goods worth Rs.36,000/-. After opening of the railway crossing, he went to hospital and after taking the primary treatment, he made a phone call to the PSI, Pethapur. Thereafter, the PSI visited the place of incident and filed the complaint against the unknown persons, which is produced at Exh.36. The panchnama of scene of offence and Ambassador Car was drawn, which are produced at Exhs.19 and 32. During the investigation, the accused Nos.1 and 2 both were arrested by way of transfer warrant from the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Prantij and then produced before the Executive Magistrate for the Test Identification Parade and panchnama was drawn.
2.2 Accordingly, FIR being C.R.No.155/1994 was lodged before Pethapur Police Station, Dist. Gandhinagar, investigation was carried out and ultimately, charge-sheet came to be filed against the accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 395 and 397 of the IPC read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act before the jurisdictional Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate Court under Section 209 of the Cr.P.C. committed the said case to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural, which came to be numbered as Sessions Case No.03/1997. Since, the accused did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried, they were tried for the said offences;
2.3 At the trial, in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined several witnesses and also relied upon the documentary evidence.
2.4 At the end of the trial and after recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code, and upon hearing the arguments on behalf of the prosecution and the defence, learned trial Court acquitted present respondents – accused from the offence under Sections 395 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 13.08.1998 in Sessions Case No.03/1997, as mentioned above;
2.5 Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant – State preferred present appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.
4. Learned APP for the appellant – State has contended that, the learned trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondents and not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record though the prosecution has proved case against the accused and the complainant along with his family members have supported the case of the prosecution.
Investigating officer has also supported the case of the prosecution and test identification parade was also conducted test identification parade was
