T.V. Nalawade, J.@mdashThe appeal is filed by the State against the judgment and order of S.T.C. No. 3784/98 which was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ahmednagar. The respondent is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 379 r.w. 511 of I.P.C. Both sides are heard. Crime was registered on the basis of report given by one Shankar Chawan on 10/6/98. He wanted to come to Aurangabad from Pune and so he had boarded one bus of M.S.R.T.C. When the bus came to S.T. stand of Ahmednagar, many passengers alighted from the bus at about 7.30 p.m. Shankar and his wife were traveling in the bus and their suitcase was kept on the shelve created in the bus for keeping the material. Respondent and one more person entered the bus and they made enquiry as to whether there were vacant seats in the bus. Shankar supplied them information that there were vacant seats but both the persons alighted from the bus.
2. After some time, one of the two persons again entered the bus and the second person came towards the window from outside. The person who was outside started making enquiry again with Shankar. When that person left the spot, Shankar noticed that his suitcase which was kept on the shelve, was missing. He had suspicion against the said two persons and he immediately alighted from the bus and he started searching for them. He found these two persons on the road leading to outside of the campus of S.T. stand and his suitcase was present with one of the two persons. He intercepted them and he said that they were having his suitcase. Shankar took the custody of the suitcase and after that one of the two persons left the spot. As the quarrel started, somebody called police posted at the stand and police took the accused and Shankar to outpost. There, report of Shankar was recorded. Statements of some persons came to be recorded and charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent for aforesaid offence.
3. In the trial Court, accused pleaded not guilty. The trial Court has acquitted the respondent by holding that the State has not proved that accused had taken away the bag of the complainant or that he had attempted to commit theft. It was submitted for the State that there was no reason for Shankar to falsely implicate the respondent in such a case.
4. Though many witnesses are examined, there is evidence of only two constables on disclosure made by complainant to them immediately after the incident and there is evidence of the complainant. Other witnesses have turned hostile.
5. Shankar [P.W.9] has given evidence that when the bus reached Ahmednagar bus stand, two persons started making inquiry with him as they wanted to come to Aurangabad. He has deposed that after 5 to 7 minutes, he noticed that his bag was not present in the shelve where he had kept the bag. He has deposed that he searched for his bag and he noticed that the two persons were carrying his bag away. He has identified respondent as one of the two persons and he has deposed that the bag was in the hand of the respondent. He has deposed that the accused asked the other person to go away and he had said that he would handle the matter. He has given evidence that after starting of the quarrel, they were taken to police outpost, where his report came to be recorded.
6. The cross examination shows that defence has not disputed that the accused was present at S.T. stand on that day. It is suggested that the complainant was running towards canteen and he gave dash to the respondent and due to that, there was quarrel. The record shows that the bag was not taken over by police and now there is only oral evidence of the complainant to the effect that his bag was taken away and he had recovered it from respondent. His evidence does not show that there is specific allegation against respondent that it is respondent who had removed the bag from the bus. Police could not trace out the other person, even when respondent was taken in custody on the same day. Witness Sopan Shelke [P.W.4] turned hostile but the relevant portion of his police statement is proved by the State at Exh.32. It shows that the other person who was not traced out, had handed over the bag to the respondent and he had left the spot. Thus, at the relevant time, probably, the respondent was not found with the bag and it is the other person who was having the custody of the bag. These circumstances are sufficient to create reasonable doubt in respect of the case against present respondent. Thus, the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view and there is no possibility of interference in the decision given by the trial Court. In the result, Appeal stands dismissed.
