1. By way of present appeal, the State of Gujarat has challenged the judgment and order dated 31.3.2005 passed by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Rajkot in Criminal Case No. 11828 of 2004, in which the respondent-accused was acquitted for the offences under Sections 379 and 356 of I.P.C.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
That the wife of Gokalbhai lodged a complaint in Bhaktinagar Police Station, District Rajkot on 3.4.2004 alleging that when she visited Dhareshwar Mandir, an unknown person came on motorcycle and snatched away her golden chain.
Respondent was arrested by Police Officer on 1.11.2004 for the offences under Sections 379 and 511 I.P.C. which was registered with another Police Station- namely Malaviyanagar Police Station and at that time the accused disclosed that he had snatched about 15 gold chains and stated that he had snatched the gold chain of complainant on 3.4.2004. After investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Rajkot, who framed the charge as Exh. 6. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove the case lodged in the complaint by Labhuben Gokalbai. Learned Trial Judge after considering the deposition of several witnesses, came to the conclusion that the prosecution could not prove the charges against the accused and acquitted him.
3. Shri Neeraj Soni learned A.P.P. has assailed the judgment of acquitting the accused and submitted that since the chain was identified by the complainant, learned Judge ought to have accepted the case of prosecution and convicted the accused for the same. I have perused the deposition of several witnesses and documents on the record of the case.
4. It is an admitted position that the incident in question took place on 3.4.2004, wherein the accused was arrested after about seven months in connection with other offence. It is also an admitted position that no identification parade has been carried out by the Investigating Officer to implicate the present respondent that he was the person who snatched the chain from the complainant. The punch witnesses in whose presence the chain was discovered have not supported the case of the prosecution. Another witness PW-2, Santoshbhai Murlidhar(Exh.8), against whom it was alleged that in whose shop the accused used to keep the chain of gold and silver etc. for melting the same, has not supported the case of prosecution. Another witness Bipinbhai Ambabhai PW-3 (Exh. 13), in whose presence the accused alleged to have shown the shops from which he has stolen the gold chains has also not supported the case of the prosecution.
5. It is well settled principle of law that while acquitting an accused a view taken by trial court is possible or plausible, acquittal can not be set aside by substituting its reasons. In the present case I do not find any justifiable or plausible reason which would convert the acquittal into conviction. I do not find any perversity of facts and law in the judgment delivered by trial court.
6. In view of this factual aspect, I am of the opinion that the Trial Court has rightly given benefit of doubt in favour of the accused and I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment and, therefore, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
[A.J. DESAI, J.] FH.