SHARMA, J. - (1.) THE State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 12. 12. 2001 passed by learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Ajmer (for short `the learned trial Court') in criminal case No. 2060/2000, whereby he acquitted the accused respondents for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC by giving them benefit of doubt.
(2.) AS per the case of the prosecution, brief facts of the case are that on 7. 8. 1995 at 3. 30 AM, Durgaram, SI submitted a report to this effect that he along-with other staff at 2. 30 AM, reached near G. C. A. chauraha for checking. Then Chowkidar stopped the jeep and told that the shutter of Dinesh Medical Store has been made up and some noise is coming inside of the shop. Then he gave a call near the shop, then no noise came. After hearing this, neighborer, Ishwari Prasad, Jagdish Sharma and auto driver Jaisingh came at the site and after that they called the persons who were sitting in the shop then Gajanand and Rakesh came inside the shop. When they asked from them, then the accused persons stated that they have entered in the shop with intention to commit theft. The police on the basis of this report, registered an FIR No. 172/1995 for the offence under sections 457, 380 and 511 IPC and after investigation the Police submitted challan against the accused respondents for the offence u/ss. 457 and 380 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused- respondents, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Prosecution in support of its case produced as many as 7 witnesses and certain documents were got exhibited. Thereafter the statements of the accused-respondents under Section 313 Cr. P. C. were recorded.
(3.) AFTER conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Court vide its judgment dated 12. 12. 2001 acquitted the accused respondents by giving them benefit of doubt. Aggrieved with the judgment dated 12. 12. 2001 of acquittal passed by learned trial Court, the State of Rajasthan has preferred the instant appeal. In this appeal it has been submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the learned trial Court has not considered the statement of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly acquitted the accused respondents. Thus, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 12. 12. 2001 is erroneous one and should be quashed and set aside. ;