ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT)

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.02.1999 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara in Sessions Case No.38 of 1998 for the offences under Sections 451, 452, 395 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the B.P. Act., the appellant – State of Gujarat has preferred this appeal as provided under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“the Code” for short) inter alia challenging the judgment and order of acquittal in favour of the respondents - accused.

2. The case of the prosecution is as under :

2.1 On 10.07.1997 at about 5:00 to 5:30 p.m., when the complainant – Prakashbhai Maheshbhai Panjabi, his sister Ashaben, His grandfather Narayandas and mermaid Jyotiben were present in their home, the accused Nos.1 and 2 and other three persons came there. One of the accused had inquired about the complainant and pushed the complainant. Whereas one of the accused had snatched the gold chain and wrist-watch from Ashaben. Out of five accused, one had entered into the house from the kitchen situated at back side and thereafter he locked the house from the back side. They threatened his grandfather. They caught the complainant and carried him one the first floor and thereby looted Rs.1,70,000/- from the locker. One of the accused had taken her sister and mermaid at the first floor and locked them in one bathroom. The accused had locked the complainant and his grandfather and run away from the place of offence by committing such offence.

2.2 Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint with regard to the incident before Gorva Police Station, Vadodara, which was registered as C.R. I No.174 of 1997 for the offences under Sections 451, 452, 395 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1) of the Arms Act and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the B.P. Act.

3. In pursuance of the complaint lodged by the complainant, investigating agency recorded statements of the witnesses, collected relevant evidence and drawn various Panchnamas and other relevant evidence for the purpose of proving the offence. After having found material against the respondents - accused, charge-sheet came to be filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Vadodara. As said Court lacks jurisdiction to try the offence, it committed the case to the Sessions Court, Vadodara as provided under section 209 of the Code.

4. Upon committal of the case to the Sessions Court, learned Sessions Judge framed Charge at Exh.5 against the respondents - accused for the aforesaid offence. The respondents - accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried

5. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined many witnesses and also produced various documentary evidence before the learned trial Court, which is described in the impugned judgment and order.

6. On conclusion of evidence on the part of the prosecution, the trial Court put various incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence to the respondent accused so as to obtain his explanation/answer as provided u/s 313 of the Code. In the further statement, the respondent accused denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him as false and further stated that he is innocent and false case has been filed against him. After hearing both the sides and after analysis of evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent accused of the offences, for which he was tried, as the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

7. This Court has admitted the appeal vide order dated 28.09.1999. The notices were served to the respondents, but they have chosen not to appear before this Court.

8. We have heard learned APP Ms. Shah appearing for the applicant State and have minutely examined the documentary evidence provided to us by learned APP d