SABINA,J. - (1.) Respondent No. 1 had faced trial under Section 460 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC'). Trial Court vide judgment/order dated 3.4.2006 ordered the acquittal of the respondent No.1 of the charge framed against him. Hence, the present petition by the complainant.
(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.
(3.) Learned trial court while ordering acquittal of respondent No.1 has taken in consideration the fact that the case rests on circumstantial evidence. Although, it was the prosecution story that the respondent No.1 had entered the house of the deceased with a view to loot Rs. 50,000/-. However, during trial prosecution had failed to establish that respondent No.1 had the knowledge that the deceased was having Rs. 50,000/- in her possession. Prosecution had also failed to establish the complete chain of circumstances which would lead to the inference that the offence had been committed by respondent No.1 and none other.;