Full Judgment
Misc.
Criminal Case No.9664/2012 22.8.2013 Shri Vijay Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the applicant-State.
Heard on I.A.No.16712/2012, which is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in preferring this application for leave to appeal.
As per Office note, the application is barred by 180 days.
Considering the reasons assigned therein, the I.A.is allowed and the delay in filing the application is, hereby condoned.
Heard on admission.
This is an application for grant of leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“Code”.
for short) against the acquittal of respondent no.1, Vikas @ Chikki Jat of the offence punishable under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'the IPC').respondent no.2, Sarman Singh of the offence punishable under Section 392/34 of the IPC and respondent no.3, Mahesh Prasad of the offence punishable under Section 411 of the IPC.
The corresponding judgment was passed by IVth Additional Session Judge, Jabalpur, in S.T.No.427/2009 on 06/02/2012.
As per the prosecution story, on 19.9.2008 between 7:30 to 7:45 pm, when complainant, Smt.
Asha was returning home with her daughter Astha, a few paces away from Krishi Upaj Mandi boundary, three boys on a red motorcycle intercepted and one of them snatched her gold chain and thereafter, all of them fled from the spot.
On the aforesaid information, FiRs.Information Report (Ex.P/1) was registered and during investigation, respondent no.1, Vikas was arrested who informed that he had sold the gold chain to accused Mahesh at Rs.2000/- whereupon the chain was seized from accused Mahesh.
Statements were recorded and accused persons were arrested.
After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed.
Learned Deputy Advocate General submitted that the trial Court had not properly appreciated the evidence on record and the judgment of acquittal deserved to be interfered with.
Having regard to the arguments advanced by learned Deputy Advocate General, we have perused the impugned judgment.
After appreciation of the evidence on record, trial Court in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment, arrived at a conclusion that the identification parade, in respect of the respondents, was vitiated, in as much as, the complainant was made to identify them at the Police Station immediately after arrest.
Similarly, identification of Gold chain by the complainant also lost its significance in view of the admission of complainant to the effect that she had identified the chain in Police Station, where only one such chain was shown by the Police to her.
Further, the trial Court, in para 17 of the judgment, found it to be a new chain, whereas, in the FIR, complainant has stated that she was relieved of a 10-year- old gold chain.
In view of all this, trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
It is well settled that the judgment of acquittal should not be disturbed unless the conclusions drawn on the basis of evidence brought on record are found to be grossly unreasonable or manifestly perveRs.or palpably unsustainable.
Taking into consideration the reasons assigned on the face of evidence on record establishing the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the view taken by the learned trial Court was apparently a possible view.
As such, no interference is called for with the order of acquittal in question.
The application, therefore, stands dismissed in limine.
(AJIT SINGH) (B.D.RATHI) JUDGE JUDGE (and)