The State through Rural Police Station Hosapete in

Ballary District has filed this appeal under Section 378(1) and

(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred

to as ‘Cr.P.C.’ for short) challenging the judgment of acquittal

passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Ballari sitting at Hospete in S.C.No.136/2013, dated

09.09.2016

whereby

the

learned

Sessions

Judge

has

acquitted the accused/respondent herein for the offence

3

punishable under Section 395 of Indian Penal Code, 1860

(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short).

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein

are referred to with their original ranks occupied by them

before the Trial Court.

Brief factual matrix leading to the case is as

under:

That PW-2 Nagamma is the mother-in-law of the

complainant and on 20.02.2013, the husband of the

complainant had gone to Shiradi while complainant had gone

to Koppal along with her children to attend a marriage

ceremony at about 8 a.m. It is alleged that PW-2 Nagamma

alone was in the house and on that day, at 2.30 p.m. when

the mother-in-law of the complainant PW2 Nagamma was

alone in the house situated within the jurisdiction of Hospete

Rural Police Station, accused Nos.1 to 5 entered into the

house and by threatening PW-2 Nagamma, tied her hands

with the help of towel and robbed hard cash of Rs.70,000/-

and golden ornaments worth Rs.1,47,000/- which were kept

in the almera in the house. As such, it is alleged that accused

have committed dacoity by robbing the victim. It is the

4

assertion of the prosecution that the complainant after getting

information on telephone, returned to home and having got

confirmed the incident, lodged a complaint in this regard.

According to the prosecution, on 16.06.2013, accused Nos.1

to 4 were apprehended and recovery of golden ornaments

was done and later on, on 18.06.2013, accused No.5 was

apprehended and golden ring and motor bike was recovered

from his custody in presence of recovery panchas. It is also

alleged by the prosecution that the Investigating Officer has

got conducted a test of identification and PW-2 Nagamma and

PW-4

Abdul

Shafi

have

identified

the

accused.

The

Investigating Officer investigated the crime, recorded the

statements of the witnesses and submitted the charge sheet

against the accused for the offence punishable under Section

395 of IPC.

After submission of charge sheet, as there are

sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused, the

cognizance of the alleged offence was taken. The accused

were arrested on 16.06.2013 and 18.06.2013 and were

remanded to judicial custody. Subsequently, accused Nos.1,

3, 4 and 5 were enlarged on bail and accused No.2 was

5

continued to be in custody. The prosecution papers were

furnished to the counsel for the accused and after hearing

both the parties, the charge under Section 395 of IPC was

framed against accused and same is read over and explained

to them. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

To prove the guilt of the accused prosecution has

examined in all 16 witnesses and has also placed reliance on

20 documents and 13 M.Os. After conclusion of the evidence

of the prosecution, the statement of accused under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. is recorded to enable the accused to explain

the incriminating evidence appearing against them in the case

of the prosecution. The case of accused is of total denial and

they did not choose to lead any oral or documentary evidence

in support of their defence.

6.

After

having

heard

the

arguments,

learned

Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has failed to bring

home the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt

and as such, acquitted them for the offence punishable under

Section 395 of IPC by the impugned judgment. Being

aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State has come

up in appeal.

6

7.

Learned

Additional

State

Public

Prosecutor

contended that the judgment of acquittal is contrary to the

law, facts and evidence on r