JUDGMENT : (MAULIK J. SHELAT, J.) 1. The present Acquittal Appeal has been filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, challenging the judgment and order dated 30.10.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in Session Case No.65 of 1997. The State is in appeal before us. By way of the impugned judgment and order, the accused have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them under Sections 395, 397, 342 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 25(1) of Arms Act. 2. The short facts of the prosecution case read as under:- 2.1 The prosecution alleges that on 20.12.1996, at around 8:30 PM, when the complainant and others were eating, the accused no.1 to 4 and accused no.9 had entered their office with guns and knife and the accused no.3 guarded with a revolver at the main door and accused nos.1,2,4 and 5 were inside the office with revolver and knife, threatened the complainant and others, who were present there and took the keys of the safe-locker and looted diamonds worth Rs.56,00,000/- and cash to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. 2.2 At the time of incident, complainant - Aswinbhai Kanji along with Ashwin chagganbhai and Jatin Mohanbhai were present and Ramnik Bhagwanbhai had come afterwards. Their hands were tied and white cloth was put around their mouth and they were gagged and locked in the bathroom at the office of the complainant. 2.3 Thereafter, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged for the offences punishable under Sections 395, 397, 342 and 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with Section 25(1) of Arms Act. 2.4 The Investigating Officer recorded witness statements, prepared panchnamas including panchnama of scene of offence, panchnama of recovery and discovery of articles looted etc. and the investigation team had also gone to Madhya Pradesh as some accused belong to Madhya Pradesh. 2.5 Upon completion of the investigation and upon committal of the case to the Trial Court, learned Trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, has found so many contradictions in the version of witnesses and complainant, who have been examined by the prosecution and the story enumerated by complainant as well as other supporting witnesses, are not found trust worthy. The learned Trial Court has also found that T.I. Parade has been done in accordance with law and considered other factors. Thus, considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court, has acquitted all the accused from all the charges. 3. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Utkarsh Sharma at length, who has taken us through various oral evidence as well as documentary evidence, which are on record. We have independently examined and appreciated evidence of witnesses. 4. Learned Trial Judge, framed charges vide Exh. 12 against the Respondents - Accused for the aforesaid offences. The Respondents Accused pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. They were tried for the said offences and in order to bring home the charge, the prosecution has examined 20 prosecution witnesses and also produced 23 documentary evidence, which are as under:- Oral Evidence PW No. PW No. Particulars and details 1 36 Arvindbhai Kanjibhai-Complainant-inconsistencies with regards to number of accused, whether he had gone to MP, breaking the bathroom door or opening it. 2 57 Ramnikbhai Bhagwanbhai- Eye-witness contradictions with regards to accused, more particularly with revolver and opening of the bathroom door. 3 59 Jatin Mohanbhai Mali- Eye-Witness discripency with regards to number of accused and opening of the door of the bathroom. 4 60 Ashwinbhai Chagganbhai- Eye-Witnesscontradictions with regards to number of accused two with revolver. 5 61 Lataben Ramnikbhai- wife of Ramnikbhai, opened the door of bathroom-contradcits the version of the complainant. 6 63 Shambhubhai Harjivanbhai- was called by Ashwinbhai after the incident. 7 64 Kanjibhai Tarsibhai- Manager at Nirav Gems 8 65 Valabhai Sadudbhai-TI parade-Hostile. 9 66 Bhupatbhai Dudhabhai- Hostile. 10 71 Nasirkhan Mehboobkhan Pathan-discovery of gun and cartridge Panch-Hostile 11 72 Bipinkumar Bhanulal Thakkar-discovery of revolver and cartridge Panch-Hostile 12 74 Temubha Govindsinh- discovery of knife etc-Hostile 13 75 Chagganbhai Lakshmanbhai- discovery of kinfe etc.-Hostile 14 78 Bhupatbhai Karsanbhai- scene of offence panch-office-Hostile 15 80 Karsanbhai Jivrajbhai-MP panch with regards to discovery of articles- Hostile 16 88 Bharatsinh Nanbhai-Panch with regards to arrest and recovery of revolver-Hostile 17 90 Sureshbhai Jivrajbhai-Panch of scene of offence-Hostile. 18 91 Jamalbhai Jadmbhai-Panch of scene of offence and other places-Hostile 19 92 Kadubhai Bhikhabhai-Panch of scene of offence-Hostile 20 93 Sukhdevisnh Mangalsinh-discovery of revolver and cartridge panch- Hostile 21 101 Natvarlal Khodidas Mehta-Mamlatdar TI Parade. 22 107 Badevsinh Jhilubha Sarvaiya-PSO, Bhavnagar A-Division 23 114 Kishorebhai Dilipbhai Bhatt-Panch of house of Prakash-MP-Hostile. 18 91 Jamalbhai Jadmbhai-Panch of scene of offence and other places-Hostile 19 92 Kadubhai Bhikhabhai-Panch of scene of offence-Hostile 20 93 Sukhdevisnh Mangalsinh-discovery of revolver and cartridge panch- Hostile 21 101 Natvarlal Khodidas Mehta-Mamlatdar TI Parade. 22 107 Badevsinh Jhilubha Sarvaiya-PSO, Bhavnagar A-Division 23 114 Kishorebhai Dilipbhai Bhatt-Panch of house of Prakash-MP-Hostile. Documentary Evidences Sr.No. Exh.No. Particulars 01 37 Complaint 02 41-53 Nirav Gems Bill 03 73 Arrest Panchnama-Premji Javerbhai 04 79 Scene of Offence Panchnama 05 81 M.P. Panchnama of Prakash Motilal House 06 82 M.P. Panchnama of Jadtu Jagganath house 07 83 M.P. Panchnama of Vikram Badrilal House. 08 84 M.P. four accused panchnama 09 85 Panchnama of recovery from Vikaram Badrilal 10 94 Muddamal Identification Panchnama 11 95 Panchnama with regards to diamonds 12 103 I.T. Parade panchanama 13 106 I.T. Parade panchnama 14 115 Panchnama with regards to diamonds 15 120 Panchnama with regards to diamonds 16 125 Discovery panchnama of diamonds 17 126 Discovery panchnama of diamonds 18 127 Discovery panchnama of diamonds 19 128 Arrest panchnama 20 129 Revolver and cartridge panchnama 21 130 Revolver and cartridge panchnama 22 131 Panchnama of Knife 23 132-137 FSL proceedings and report 5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.Utkarsh Sharma would submit that the findings of acquittal are contrary to law in evidence on record and the findings recorded by the Trial Court are erroneous and based on irrelevant material. 5.1 He would further submit that learned Trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the respondents - accused and has not properly appreciated the evidence produced on record, though the prosecution had proved its case against the accused and learned Trial Court has given weightage to the minor omission and contradiction in the version of witnesses though there was no any material omission and contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses. 5.2 Learned APP would further submit that the learned Trial Court has wrongly emphasized on so called contradictions in number of individuals, who committed the crime, thereby, wrongly passed the order of acquittal. Further, Learned APP submits that I.T. Parade was undertaken in accordance with law. 5.3 Thus, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and thereby, has committed an error in acquitting the accused. Further, Learned APP submits that I.T. Parade was undertaken in accordance with law. 5.3 Thus, the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused are unjust, improper, perverse and unwarranted to the facts of the prosecution case and thereby, has committed an error in acquitting the accused. It is further submitted that the prosecution has established the guilt of all the accused and learned Trial Court has committed an error both on law and facts. 5.4 Thus, the learned Trial Court has wrongly recorded the order of acquittal, which deserves to be quashed and appropriate sentences for the offences be passed against all the accused and he urged this Court to allow the captioned appeal. 6. Per contra, learned advocate, Ms Mita S Panchal appearing for the accused No.10,5,6 and 7 has vehemently opposed the appeal contenting, inter alia, that persecution has miserably failed to prove charges levelled against accused. 6.1 He would further contended that the entire story of complainant is concocted one and version of testimonies of witnesses contradicts each other and the story narrated by them in respect to the number of accused. Further, T.I. Parade was also not conducted in accordance with law. Further, at the time of recording of Panchnama, no local panch was called.. 6.2 He would further summit that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence on record and having found various anomalies in evidence of prosecution including . 6.3 He would further submit that in a case of acquittal, there would be a total presumption of innocence in favour of accused and as per such legal position of law and criterias laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while deciding appeal against order of acquittal, this Court may not disturb the order of acquittal. Thus, the learned Trial Court has correctly acquitted the accused so he has requested this Court not to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal. 7. We have gone through the records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India while deciding acquittal appeal, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal. 8. 7. We have gone through the records and after re-appreciating the evidence and keeping in mind, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court of India while deciding acquittal appeal, we deem it appropriate to decide the appeal. 8. Before dealing with merit of the appeal, at this stage, we would like to remind ourselves the position of law by Supreme Court of India in its various decisions, whereby it has laid down several criteria while deciding acquittal appeal. 9. One of the recent pronouncement, in which, the Supreme Court of India in a case of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and Others vs. State of Karnataka [ (2024) 8 SCC 149 ] has held as under: “39. This Court in the case of Rajesh Prasadv. State of Bihar and Another, (2022) 3 SCC 471 encapsulated the legal position covering the field after considering variousearlier judgments and held as below: - "29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court culled out the following general principles regarding the powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal in the following words: (Chandrappa case [ Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 ] " 42. From the above decisions, in our considered view, the following general principles regarding powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge: (1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded. (2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law. (3) Various expressions, such as, "substantial and compelling reasons", "good and sufficient grounds", "very strong circumstances", "distorted conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of "flourishes of language" to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. (4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court." 40. Further, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581 this Court summarized the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of CrPC as follows: - "8.1.The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence; 8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence; 8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re- appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record; 8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and 8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 41. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible." 41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate Court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial Court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:- 41.1 That the judgment of acquittal suffers from patent perversity; 41.2 That the same misreading/omission to evidence on record; is based on a consider material 41.3 That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record. 42. The appellate Court, in order to interfere with the judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial Court.” 10. Now, keeping in mind the aforesaid ratio and after appreciating the evidence on record, following glaring facts, which are noticed by learned Sessions Court, while acquitting the accused, are required to be considered while deciding the present appeal. 11. We have gone through the impugned judgment and reappreciated entire sets of evidence. We are in complete agreement with the observations and reasons assigned by learned Trial Court while acquitting the accused. There are serious contradictions, improbable story of prosecution, which lead to only one conclusion and hence, the Trial Court has correctly acquitted the accused by giving benefit of doubt. 12. The Trial Court has considered the oral as well as documentary evidence, whereby, each and every relevant witness and the evidence has been discussed. The learned Trial Court has considered the aspect with regards to contradictions in the version of testimonies in respect of number of individuals, who had committed the said offence as the complainant in his complaint and deposition states different number of individuals i.e. 5 in complaint at Exh-37 and 7 in deposition at Exh-36. The learned Trial Court has considered the aspect with regards to contradictions in the version of testimonies in respect of number of individuals, who had committed the said offence as the complainant in his complaint and deposition states different number of individuals i.e. 5 in complaint at Exh-37 and 7 in deposition at Exh-36. Further, the deposition of Ramnikbhai - PW2 recorded at Exh-57, wherein, he states that there was one individual standing outside the office with a revolver, who took him inside and only this aspect has been contradicted from the version of the complainant and he accepted the other parts of the testimony of the victim. Therefore, there are contradictions in the versions of the eyewitnesses with regards to number of accused. 13. Further, Jatinbhai Mohanbhai Mali - PW3 at Exh-59, in his deposition states that there were 4 individuals at the time of incident, whereas Ashwinbhai Chhaganbhai – P.W.4, at Exh-60 states that there were 2 individuals with revolver and 2 others had come afterwards. 14. In view of the above, the Trial Court has considered the contradictions in regard to the individuals, more particularly, the version of complaint at Exh-37 and the deposition of the complainant at Exh-36. 15. The Trial court has also considered the aspect as to how the complainant and the witnesses had come out of the bathroom either by breaking the door or the door was opened by Lataben Ramnikbhai, who was examined at Exh-61 as P.W.5 and found that there was material contradiction, more particularly, in deposition of complainant at Exh-36 and deposition of Ramnikbhai at Exh-57 along with the deposition of Lataben at Exh-61. Further, the Trial Court has considered the depositions at Exh-59, 60 and 61 in this context in depth along with the panchnama at Exh-69 and 79 respectively. 16. The Trial Court has also considered the legality and the facts with regards to the T.I Parade conducted and the manner and method of the same along with it’s reliability and has observed that the T.I. parade cannot be said to be in accordance with law and that there was prior knowledge about the accused to the ones who had identified and also the aspect that even the T.I. parade carried out is also done casually. 17. 17. The Trial Court has also considered the aspect with regards to usage of private vehicle - Tata Sumo and taking along Karsanbhai Jivrajbhai at Exh-80 and Kishorebhai at Exh-114 at Madya Pradesh (M.P.) and has observed that they cannot be said to independent panchas and that no local panch was called upon at M.P. In fact, why a stranger would accompany the police authorities to M.P. is also doubted by the Trial Court. 18. The Trial Court has considered the aspect that Karsanbhai was also dealing in diamonds and was known to the original diamond holder i.e. Nirav Jensawala of Nirav Gems. Therefore, the aspect with regards to Panchama, T.I. parade and interested panchas etc. as has been discussed and held that the whole exercise of discovery of diamonds and the T.I. Parade is doubtful. 19. The Trial Court has also considered the aspect of stay at M.P. Electricity Board Guest house and those, who were accompanied there, which creates doubt about the whole exercise of arrest, panchanama and discovery and recovery of the diamonds, etc. 20. The Trial Court has also considered that the complainant had tried to hide the aspect of him being at M.P. and the whole exercise of going to M.P. and proceedings carried out there. 21. Therefore, the Trial Court, upon overall consideration of all the facts, more particularly, the contradictions in the version of number of accused and breaking or opening the bathroom door, investigation, T.I parade and recovery and discovery of the diamonds and weapons, acquitted all the accused from all the charges. 22. Thus, after going through evidence and its re-appreciation as well as reasons assigned by learned Sessions Court, the prosecution has failed to prove that the charges against accused are just and proper and we are in complete agreement with reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Court while acquitting accused. 23. Considering these set of evidences on record and in light of the latest decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court as reproduced hereinabove, which deals with the law on acquittal, we are of the opinion that no error has been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavnagar, in Sessions Case No.65 of 1997 while acquitting the respondents. 24. The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. 24. The appeal is accordingly DISMISSED. Resultantly, the impugned judgment and order of the trial court is hereby confirmed. Bail bond, if any, shall stand cancelled. Record and proceedings, if called for, be sent back to the concerned Trial Court forthwith.