1. Though served, but nobody is appearing on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the Appeal is taken up for hearing today.
2. The present appeal, under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is directed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.12.1996 passed by the learned Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad City, Court No.5 in Sessions Case No.125 of 1995, whereby the accused has been acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
3. Facts in brief of the prosecution case are such that on 25.5.1995, the complainant boarded Jodhpur Express for proceeding to Jhalor and in the compartment, where he met a persons and out of the persons, one person had put on black pant and white shirt, offered Frutee (soft drink) to the complainant and same was consumed by the complainant and he was become unconscious. Thereafter, the complainant found himself in Gandhi Hospital at Jodhpur. During his journey in Jodhpur Express, after consuming the soft drink offered by the person, he lost citizen writ watch and as per his say, the same was stolen by the said persons, who were accompanied in the train. Therefore, the offence under Sections 328, 379 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. Thereafter, necessary investigation was carried out and statements of several witnesses were recorded. During the course of investigation, respondent was arrested and, ultimately, chargesheet was filed against him before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. Thereafter, as the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the same was committed to the Sessions Court, which was numbered as Sessions Case No.125 of 1995. The trial was initiated against the respondent accused.
4. To prove the case against the present accused, the prosecution has examined, in all 4 witnesses and also produced several documentary evidence.
5. At the end of trial, after recording the statement of the accused under section 313 of Cr.P.C., and hearing arguments on behalf of prosecution and the defence, the learned Additional City Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents of all the charges leveled against him by judgment and order aforesaid.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court, the appellant State has preferred the present appeal.
7. It is submitted by learned APP that the judgment and order of the Sessions Court is against the provisions of law; the Sessions Court has not properly considered the evidence led by the prosecution and looking to the provisions of law itself it is established that the prosecution has proved the whole ingredients of the evidence against the present respondents. Learned APP has also taken this court through the oral as well as the entire documentary evidence. She stated that the complainant had identified the accused and thereby the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Even there is direct evidence which links the accused in the commission of the offence, but the lower Court without appreciating the evidence on record, acquitted the accused of the charges. Therefore, the judgment and order of acquittal is required to be quashed and set aside by allowing Appeal and by holding the appellant guilty of the charges, conviction is required to be awarded in favour of the accused.
8. I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the parties. I have perused the oral evidence of the witnesses examined by the trial Court. From the record it appears that the police made so many efforts to hold T.I. Parade, all efforts were in vain. The complainant did not turn up to attend T.I. Parade and therefore, in absence of identification, it is not proper to hold guilty the accused for the offences as alleged. Even no T.I. parade was carried out by the prosecution for identification purpose of the accused. After a period of two years, the complainant identified the accused in the Court, but no description of the accused was tendered by the complainant. As per the say of the complainant, he was treated at Jodhpur Hospital, but no medical evidence is produced on record. After seizing of the wrist watch of the complainant, the panchnama was drawn in the presence of panachas, but the said panchas were not examined by the prosecution. The identification of muddamal article was doubtful. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the lower Court and lower Court after rightly appreciating the evidence on record and aspects of the facts and circumstances of the case, acquitted the accused from the charges as alleged.
9. I have gone through the judgment and order passed by the trial court. I have also perused the oral as well as documentary evidence led before the trial court and also considered the submissions made by learned APP for the appellantState. Thus, from the evidence itself, it is established that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
10. It is also a settled legal position that in acquittal appeal, the appellate court is not required to rewrite the judgment or to give fresh reasonings, when the reasons assigned by the Court below are found to be just and proper. Such principle is laid down by the Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Hemareddy, reported in AIR 1981 SC 1417 wherein it is held as under:
“… This court has observed in Girija Nandini Devi V. Bigendra Nandini Chaudhary (1967)1 SCR 93: (AIR 1967 SC 1124) that it is not the duty of the appellate court when it agrees with the view of the trial court on the evidence to repeat the narration of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the Court the decision of which is under appeal, will ordinarily suffice.”
11. Learned APP is not in a position to show any evidence to take a contrary view of the matter or that the approach of the trial court is vitiated by some manifest illegality or that the decision is perverse or that the trial court has ignored the material evidence on record.
12. In the above view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court was completely justified in acquitting the respondent of the charges leveled against her.
13. I find that the findings recorded by the trial court are absolutely just and proper and in recording the said findings, no illegality or infirmity has been committed by it.
14. I am, therefore, in complete agreement with the findings, ultimate conclusion and the resultant order of acquittal recorded by the court below and hence find no reasons to interfere with the same. Hence the appeal is hereby dismissed. Bail bond, if any, stands cancelled. Record and proceedings to be sent back to trial Court, forthwith.
ynvyas (Z.K. SAIYED, J.)