E HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.1214 of 1992 APPELLANT: State of Madhya Pradesh (now State o Chhattisgarh) Versus Rahman S/o Ahlf Occupation Labour R/o Datla Police Station Jamagar Dustt Surguja M P (now C G) {Criminal appeal under Section 378 (1) of the Code of Cnmlnal Procedure 1973} Present: Mr. Suryakant Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the State/appeHant. Mr. D.N. Prajapati, counsel for the respondent. RESPONDENT/g (Accused) Single Bench: Hon’lale Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL JUDGMENT (30-6—2010) \ _ . By this appeal, the State has challenged legality & propriety of the ’ judgment of acquittal dated '3Q—3—92 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Second Class Ambikapur in Criminal Case No 197/88 whereby & whereunder learned JudICIal Magistrate Second Class has acquitted the respondent after givmg the benefit of doubt of the charge under Section 379 of the i P C 2. As per the case of the prosecution, respondent Rahman has committed theft of two bullocks of complainant Devnarayan (PW-1) and sold to co- accused Chetanram & Karmen Ram. Finally the bullocks were seized. Offence was investigated and charge sheet was filed. 3. ln order to prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has examined as many as six witnesses. The accused were examined under Section * 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 4. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned Judicial Magistrate Second Class acquitted the accused of the aforesaid charge. l have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and record of the trial Court. . Learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the e'vidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for f ' . drawing inference that respondent Rahman has committed theftvof two bullocks and co-accused Chetanram‘ & Karmen Ram were found in possession of the said buliocks knowing the same to be stolen property, but the trial Court has acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt and thereby committed illegality. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent oppoSes the appeal and submits that this is criminal case and the prosecution is required to prove its case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, the prosecution cannot take the benefit of lacuna of defence. in the present case, evidence ddced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for" creating suspicion and doubt that the responden may have committed te offence, but is not suicie for drawing dennite conclusion that the espondent and oer co-accused have comitted the offence of theft. The trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent and otr co-accused after giving the benefit of doubt. 8. ln rder to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, i have examined he evidence addced on behalf of the prsecution. 9. In the present case, as per the evidence of omplainant Devnarayan (PW-1 his two bullocks were stole and found in the house .of co-' accused Chetanram & Karmn Ram and he came to know that they hve purchased the bullocks from respondent Rahman. Oher witnesses have also stated that Raman has sold bullocks to the co-accuSed, but the c‘o—accused he not aid full aoun of cost of bullocks, a e, a by R h accu eed d p Com a ( d n t av p mt nd therefor no receipt ws executed ahman. All te sed have dni theft an possession of the stolen roperty. plainant Devnaryan PW-1) has not produce any document relatig o ownership of bullocks. No identification parade was conducted to prove t o 1As er the evidence of the witnesses, -accused Chenram & Karmen Ram have purchased the bullocks on reasonable cost. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that these co-accused were in a possession of the bullocks knowing the same to be stolen property. 11.ln the present case, definitely the evidence adduced en behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for casting doubt and suspicionupon the respondent & co-accused that they might have committed the offence, but it is not sufficient for drawing definite conclusion they are the persons hat the bullcks were owned by complainant Devnarayan (PW-1). 0. p co ta au t h ffnt r th m he o t u o c ) n e a t h who have committed the offence of theft. The View taken by the trial Court and acquittal of the respondent after giving the benefit of doubt is neither iilegal nor unjust in the facts and circumstances of this case. Consequently, the appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- VT.P. Sharma i Judge ‘ i , TJ H g