Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Based on the aforesaid complaint, the jurisdictional police registered case in Crime No.25/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 380 of IPC. During the investigation, the complainant made a statement that the shortage of amount is to the tune of Rs.2,36,600/-. After completion of investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet against the accused. After committal of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused, framed the charge for the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 381 of IPC and read over and explained to the accused in the language known to him, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. Learned Sessions Judge based on the aforesaid pleadings, framed two points for consideration. Considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge answered both the points in the negative holding that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on 15.01.2012, the accused being a driver, working at No.240, 2nd Stage, 13th Cross, 1st Floor R.S. Plaza stepped into the office and broken almirah of accounts Section and stolen Rs.2,33,657/-, thereby committed offence under Section 381 of IPC and further recorded a finding that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that on the said date, he has broken the lock of the almirah forcibly and removed Rs.2,36,657/- and thereafter in order to escape from the office, lit fire to the office, thereby the computers, furniture and documents have been burnt, thereby he has committed the offence under Section 436 of IPC. Accordingly, the learned Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment of acquittal, acquitted the accused for the aforesaid offences. Hence, the prosecution filed the present appeal.

9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that would arise for our consideration in the present criminal appeal is:

"Whether the appellant/State has made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 381 of IPC, in exercise of the appellate powers of this Court under Sections 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the facts and circumstances of the case ?"

27. On re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and in the light of the principles enunciated in the dictums of the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case.

28. For the reasons stated above, the point raised in the present criminal appeal is answered in the negative holding that the appellant/State has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court acquitting the respondent/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 436 and 381 of IPC, in exercise of the appellate powers of this Court under Sections 378(1) and (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in the facts and circumstances of the case.